.mh 


^aH^i' 


w, 

] 

Mflf'iln " 

w 

; 

IRf  ^M/'  -4   ' 

^1 

A 

4i5 

i 

mr'^ 


'^'"a.^'CpA 


^/^^^l^' 


.^5^5«??'^ 


MaI 

§ 

I^^N^^i 

'M^m 


pmor^r' 


0^ 


^^.^^^■' 


LIBRARY 


PRiaJ€ETO«f,  K.  J. 


IMlKATIOX    111- 

S  A  M  IJ  K  1.    A  a  N  K  W  , 

J 

UK     H  H  I  L  A  ]J  !■;  L  P  H  1  V  .    PA. 


Letter 


iVo. 


^/  "^1      Ml^^^  ..^..:^.^^x 


/, 


^S-t^ti 


\^h^f^' 


C(l:<l-,  .Division. ..f^^^<C.||;n.' 


t) 


Bofklc, 


No. 


;r\,^K  «  At  't\  -  t  S  S  'S  S  §  '^  8  <§  ft  c 


''^ij^^^^'^'''^^. 


■^  ^  «k  i  "• 


^^^2» 


»i«fis«!.,.afil?.a*flfl^.iAA.. 


'iiJisBliitWfflife*.:^! 


'^r^^nn,^^. 


!^^^^i 


.A^,<^f^i*A^^^5i??'' 


aA^V^a-^^A^ 


i'^A/^,0/ 


^«A^?; 


^^.f^<^A'''^. 


^/^^.^a' 


j^mImJV 


A^^^^^ 


^M&AM:22m^^nM 


4m 


A 


DEFENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH, 


i.S  SET  rOIlTH  IN  THE 


"  HISTORY  AND  MYSTERY 


OF 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY,^ 


ABFIiir  TO  JOBI^  EMOILY'S 

•^DEFENCE  OF  OUR  FATHERS/' 


BY  ALUZASTDEXl  3M[*CAINE. 


Fear  them  not  therefore  ;  for  there  is  nothing  covered,  that  shall  not  be 
re\eale(l :  and  liid,  that  shall  not  be  known — Jesus  Christ. 

I  take  it  to  be  my  duty,  to  be  so  faithful  to  the  stock  of  reputation  God 
hath  given  me,  as  to  defend  it  at  the  rate  of  opening  the  tbuth. — Baxter, 


— ^O*^— 


BALTIMORE  : 
PRINTED  BY  R.  J.  MATCHETT,  57,  SOUTH  STREET, 


1829. 


PREFACfl. 

When  I  commenced  an  investigation  of  the  origin  of  Method* 
ist  episcopac},!  wasaministerof  (he  Methodist  episcopal  church. 
I  conceived  it,  therefore,  to  be  my  right,  and  felt  it  to  he  my  dutyy 
to  make  the  i.iveatigation.  I  commenced  it  in  the  fear  of  God, 
and  as  a  candid  inquirer  after  truth.  I  did  it  toobiain  satisfac- 
tion upon  points,  respecting  which,  my  mind  had  been,  more  or 
less,  exercised  for  many  years,  i  did  it  to  ascertain  the  truth 
of  the  statement  in  the  minutes  of  conference,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
recommended  the  episcopal  form  of  government:  which  r-tate- 
Dient,  I  could  not  reconcile  with  his  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  in 
which,  with  unparalleled  severity,  he  censured  Mr.  Asbury,  for 
having  assumed  the  title  of  bishop.  I  did  it,  to  find  out  by 
what  means  the  travelling  preachers  had  become  possessed  of 
the  legislative,  judicial  and  executive  power, when  these  same  tra- 
velling preachers  declared,  that  neither  local  preachers,  nor  lay- 
men have  any  right  to  a  representation  in  the  genera!  conference. 

At  the  commencement  of  my  undei'taking,  I  determined  to 
spare  no  pains  to  obtain  all  possible  information,  oi'  the  sub- 
ject of  my  research  1  resolved  to  avail  myself  of  what  had 
been  written,  respecting  Methodist  episcopacy,  by  its  friends, 
or  reputed  enemies.  1  determined  to  weigh  every  argument 
as  I  went  along,  with  all  the  impartiality  J  was  able;  and  to 
judge  of  their  value,  not  only  by  contemplating  them  in  tiie 
abstract,  but  by  taking  them  in  connexion  with  the  facts,  upon 
which  they  were  intended  to  have  a  bearing. 

In  foriiiing  the  above  determinatioiis,  I  laid  it  down  as  a  go- 
verning rule,  to  apply  to  no  person,  who  might  be  suspected  of 
being  inimical  to  the  institutions  or  prosperity  of  the  church. 
When  it  was  known  that  I  was  writing  upon  the  subject,  (  was 
frequently  urged  to  apply  to  certain  individuals,  who,  it  was 
thought,  had  an  intimate  knowledge  of  early  Methodism:  but 
as  I  was  aware  how  the  testimony  of  these  individuals  might 
be  received,  if  it  were  obtained,  I  (ieclined  making  any  appli- 
cation. I  thouglit  it  best  to  introduce  no  testimony,  that  might 
vitiate  my  book,  but  to  rest  my  positions  upon  personal  know- 
ledge, the  records  of  the  church,  such  publications  as  I  kne^v 
to  be  true,  or  such  as  had  the  approbation  ol"  the  connexion,  by 
being  printed  at  the  book  room,  and  by  being  sold  by  the  travel 
ling  preachers. 


I*' 

Upon  points,  concerning  which  I  was  at  a  loss,  and  wliich 
I  deemed  to  be  closely  connected  with  the  subject  of  my  re- 
search, my  first  effort,  to  obtain  the  desired  information,  was, 
to  address  a  circular  to  the  five  bishops  of  the  church.  In  that 
letter  I  assured  them,  'Hhat  nothing  disrespectful  was  intended 
in  the  matter  or  manner  of  my  communication;"  that  I  wrote 
with  a  view  of  being  corrected,  "•  if  I  had  been  led  into  an 
error  by  the  documents  in  my  possession;*'  and  that  '>  felt  it  to 
be  a  duty  I  owed  to  those  in  the  episcopacy,  to  write  to  thv;m 
"before  I  would  commit  the  result  of  my  investigation  to  the  " 
press." 

There  is,  on  the  very  face  of  my  letter,  evidence  that  it  was 
dictated  by  a  friendly  spirit;  that  I  was  influenced  by  a  love  of 
truth;  and  that  I  was  fearful  of  publishing  any  thing,  which 
might  injuriously,  though  unintentionally,  affect  the  episcopal 
office.  Although,  from  these  considerations  I  had  reason  to  ex- 
pect -an  answer,  yet  not  one  of  them  ever  condescended  to  no- 
tice my  letter.  As  gentlemen,  they  were  under  obligations  to 
answer  it.  It  was  respectfully  written,  and  was  entitled  to  a 
respectful  consideration.  Standing  at  the  head  of  the  connex- 
ion, and  filling  the  episcopal  office,  they  were  under  obligations 
to  answer  it;  because  it  lelated  to  subjects  of  a  general  interest 
to  the  church,  and  information  upon  these  subjects,  was  all  I 
required.  By  their  silence,  however,  they  have  subjected 
themselves  to  the  imputation  of  being  iiiditlerent  to  the  truth, 
and  to  the  welfare  of  the  connexion.  Having  affixed  their  sig- 
natures to  the  book  of  discipline,  and  by  so  doing,  averred  it  to 
be  a  fact,  that  Mr,  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  form  of 
church  government,  they  were  personally,  individuady  and  offi- 
cially, under  the  most  sacred  obligations  to  say,  where  that' 
recommendation  could  be  found;  especially  when  it  ^vas  called 
for  by  a  minister  of  their  own  church;  by  one  who  was  older 
in  years  and  in  the  ministry,  than  a  majority  of  themselves;  by 
one  who  had  been  twice  in  the  itinerancy,  and  had  filled  some  of 
the  most  important  and  responsible  oflices  in  the  church;  and 
who  requested  the  information  in  a  polite  and  respectful  man- 
ner. Their  silence  subjects  them  to  the  charge  of  having  af- 
fixed their  signatures  to  a  statement,  of  the  truth  of  which,  they 
were  ignorant,  at  the  time  they  did  it;  or  now,  when  the  re- 
commendation is  called  for,  and  they  cannot  produce  it,  of  en- 
deavouring to  impose  upon  the  connexion  by  keeping  up  a  show 
of  things,  deceptions  and  false.  In  whatever  point  of  light, 
therefore,*the  silence  of  the  five  bishops  may  be  considered,  it  will 
not  redound  to  their  credit;  especially  when  I  inform  the  read- 
er, that  of  all  those  to  whom  I  have  applied  for  information, 
whether  in  the  church,  or  out  of  the  church,  from  the  day  I 


commenced  my  investigation,  down  to  the  present  time,  they 
are  the  only  persons,  who  have  withheld  an  answer,  or  who 
have  treated  my  application  with  contemptuous  silence. 

From  the  six  old  preachers,  to  whom  the  other  circular  in 
the  "Appendix"  was  sent,  1  received  prompt  and  polite  an- 
swers. As  gentlemen  they  knew  too  well  what  was  due  to  a 
respectful  application,  not  to  answer  my  letter.  And  having  no 
interests  to  serve,  but  those  which  were  founded  in  truth  and 
justice,  there  was  no  inducement  to  withhold  a  reply.  Being 
confirmed  by  their  answers,  and  by  the  silence  of  the  bishops, 
in  the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  results,  to  which  had 
been  conducted,  by  collating  the  documents,  which  I  had  ex- 
amined; and  being  solicited  by  many  of  my  friends,  I,  at  length, 
determined  to  put  my  pamphlet  to  the  press.  In  doing  this,  I 
had  no  wish  that  a  replication  should  not  be  made.  The  contrary 
was  the  case;  for  as  truth  was  my  sole  object,  I  had  nothing  to 
fear  from  a  development  of  the  truth  :  inasmuch,  as  whether 
my  views  were  confirmed,  or  proved  to  be  erroneous,  I  was 
sure  to  be  a  gainer.  I  did,  therefore,  wish  for  a  reply,  that  if  I 
were  mistaken,  I  might  know  wherein  I  erred.  I  did  wish  for 
such  a  reply  as  would  bear  an  official  stamp,  by  being  the  pro- 
duction of  some  person  or  persons,  appointed  by  an  annual  con- 
ference, or  by  the  general  conference.  This  was  the  course 
whir.h  I  expected  would  have  been  taken;  as  an  annual  con- 
ference appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  an  answer  to  Mr. 
O'Keily's  pamphlet  See  the  preface  to  Mr  Snethen's  reply. 
I  did  wish  such  a  reply  as  would  embody  all  the  documentary 
proof  thqit  could  be  collected;  that  thereby  the  members  of  the 
church  might  be  able  to  judge  of  the  points  at  issue,  and  deter- 
mine for  themselves  whether  my  views  of  Methodist  episcopa- 
cy, and  the  episcopal  form  of  her  church  government,  were 
correct  or  erroneous. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  pursuing  this  fair,  honourable  and  Chris- 
tian course,  a  very  different  one  was  adopted  Dr.  Thomas  E. 
Boiid,  William  Wilkins,  Andrew  Adgate,  Chi  isfian  Keener,  and 
William  Browne,  drew  up  an  "  Address,"  which  "  was  discuss- 
ed and  adopted  by  a  large  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church"  in  Baltimore,  and  ordered  "  to  be 
sent  to  their  brethren  throughout  the  United  States."  In  this 
"  address"  they  express  themselves  in  the  following  manner  re- 
specting me  and  my  work  ;  "  a  pamphlet  written  by  a  local 
preacher,  in  which  the  whole  system  of  Methodism,  is  assailed 
with  all  the  guile  and  artifice  and  sophistry  of  a  Jesuit,  and  with 
all  the  malignity  of  which  the  human  heart  is  capable.  We  al- 
lude to  the  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  by 
Alexander  M'Caine.  A  work  which  for  malignity  of  purpose, 
shrewd  cunning,  misrepresentation  of  facts,  and  misstatement  of 
circumstances,  has  no  parallel  among  the  productions  of  modern 


VI 

times,  on  a  similar  subject,  except  the  far-famed  Cobbett's  His- 
tory of  tlie  Reformation." 

As  these  gentlemen  have  represented  me  in  this  odious  light, 
it  remains  for  them  to  make  their  assertions  good  ;  otherwise, 
the  inlamy  they  intended  to  fix  on  me.  will  fall  upon  themselves. 
I  call  on  them,  therefore,  nay,  I  dejy  them  to  prove  what 
they  have  said:  For,  to  say  nothing  of  the  other  parts  of 
their  statement,  they  commence  by  saying  tliat  which  is  not 
true  ;  namely  that  I  have  "■  assailed  the  whole  system  of  Method- 
ism'''' Nor,  was  the  publication  of  this  slanderous  address  the 
only  means  used  to  destroy  my  character.  Private  and  -i-andal- 
ous  reports  were  put  in  circulation.  And  this  same  Dr.  Tiiomas 
E.  Bond  has  since  acknowledged  to  myself,  that  he  said,  "  if  he 
were  to  sweep  the  streets  of  Baltimore,  he  could  not  find  a  man 
under  the  influence  of  worse  motives  than  I  was."  And  although 
he  has  since  denied  it,  the  Rev.  Mr,  -  —  will  affirm  that  Dr. 
Bond  said  to  him,  "  there  was  not  a  worse  man  in  the  cells  of 
the  penitentiary  than  M'Caine.'"* 

fn  continuation  of  the  plan  to  destroy  my  character,  and  there* 
by  sir)k  the  credit  of  my  book,  charges  of  "■  slander  and  false- 
hood"! were  preferred  against  me,  for  having,  in  a  district  con- 

•Thatthe  reader  may  know  what  credit  is  due  to  Dr  Bond's  statements, 
I  subjoin  the  following  letter  of  recommendation,  which  I  obtained  last  year, 
wh.  n  I  was  going  to  the  South. 

"  BAtriMOHE,  N'JVKMBEH  8th,  1827. 

*'  As  the  Rev.  Alexander  M'Caine  has  it  in  contemplation  to  spend  the 
ensuing  winter  in  the  Southern  States,  with  rhe  view  of  improving  hit 
health  ;  and  as  he  has  signifit-d  to  us  his  intention  to  employ  himself,  while 
on  tiie  tour,  in  making  arrangements  for  the  sale  of  books,  and  in  obrainmg 
subscriptions  for  useful,  literary  and  scientific  works,  &c  &.c. ;  v/e  cheer- 
fully avail  ourselves  of  the  occasion,  to  recommend  him  to  the  notice  and 
confidence  of  such  professional  gentlemen  and  other  citizens  of  taste  and 
reading,  as  m.ay  feel  desirous  to  be  accommodated  by  his  attentions." 

JOHN  B.    DAVIDGE,  M.    D.         ?  Profssors  in  the   Un'ver-^ 
NATHANIEL  PO  TTEli,  M.   D.  5  sity  ofMaryiaiid. 

PETKR  CHA TARD,  M.   D. 
HORATIO    G    JAUISON,  M    D^ 
JA.lK^  H    MlLLEk    M.  D  I       p    /•  ■      „ 

SAMUEi.  K    JENNINGS     M    D.    '.  „.     ,°/"^*'"''' /,'' ,.^"'; 
"  SAMUEL  ANNAN,  M.   D.  H  «,/u;,^..««    »/«/.caf 

JOHN   W.  VETHAKE,   M.  D.         (  ^''^^^^''  ^"'"'«'"^^- 
iV     VV.  HANDY,  M.  D.  J 

N    BRICE,  -}  Judges  of  Baltimorir 

ALi:X    NISBET,  $  City  Court 

F.LIAS  m.V.^l'i,  Judge  of  the  U  S-  District  Court. 
NATHL.   V.ILLIAMS,    US    District  Altorney. 
JOHN   PURVIANGE,    Counsellor  at  Law. 
W  M.   WIRT,  Jittorney  General  of  the  U.  S.       ' 
SAML    L.   SOUTHARD,    Secretary  of  the  J^''avy. 
JOHN  M'LE  \N,  Posmasier  General 
t'TliefoUowii.gare  the  specilicatioiis  furi.ishtd  on th.it  occasion  by  Mr.  Hanson. 
"SpF.ciFiCA-iioN  I.  In  iiavingal  the  distnci  0  iiifeience  at  tieorgetown,  D.  C 
in  the  year  1821,  represented  me  as  a  dishonest  man,  and  as  having  while  ir 


Vll 

Terence,  nearly  seven  years  before,  objected  to  a  certain  man's 
obtaining  a  license  to  preach.  What  hand  Dr.  Bond  had  in  urefing 
this  mavrto  prefer  these  charges,!  will  not  say,  though  I  believe  he 
was  at  the  bottom  of  it  One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that  on  the 
•trial,  the  man  of  copper  spike  memory  sent  a  person  for  his  "  friend 
Dr.  Bond,"  and  when  the  Doctor  came  in,  his  first  effort,  even 
before  he  sat  down,  was  to  have  Alcaeus  B.  Wolfe,  Esq.  my 
stenographer,  turned  out  of  the  room.  Failing  in  this,  the  Doc- 
tor then  sat  down  beside  the  prosecutor,  and  appeared  to  be  very 
busy  in  helping  him  to  sustain  the  charges  and  carry  on  the  pro- 
secution. Will  the  reader  believe,  that  although  this  man  of 
copper  spike  memory  was  told  by  one  of  my  witnesses  on  the 
trial,  what  I  do  not  think  it  prudent  to  write,  and  was  told  it  too, 
in  the  presence  of  James  M.  Hanson,  Dr.  Bond,  the  committee, 
and  twenty  or  thirty  witnesses,  yet  (his  same  man,  was  in  ft 
Methodist  pulpit  the  next  day  thereafter,  and  continues  to  have 
access  to  Methodist  pulpits  still  ;  whilst  Dr  S.  K.  Jennings  and 
ten  other  local  ministers  have  been  expelled  the  church  on  ac- 
count of  their  reforming  principles  !  ! 

Finding  that  my  pamphlet  was  working  its  way,  notwith- 
standing the  publication  of  the  above  address,  signed  "  William 
Wilkins chairman,"  and  "John  Howland  secretary,"  and  that  the 
charges  of"  slander  and  falsehood'*  could  not  be  sustained, 
they  next  brought  me  to  trial  for  writing  the  book.  The  same 
charges  were  preferred  against  me,  which  were  preferred 
against  the  other  brethren,  who  had  been  tried  for  being  re- 
formers, namely  that  I  was  a  member  of  the  Union  Society,  and 
patronised  the  Mutual  Rights.  To  these  was  added,  that  I  was 
the  author  of  the  "  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  episco- 

the  employment  of  Mr.  Thomas  Kemp  on  Fell's  Point,  purchased  copper, 
knowing  it  to  be  stolen  ;  and  of  having-  left  that  place  to  avoid  the  peniten- 
tiary, or  a  legal  prosecution. 

Specification  2.  Ot  having  in  said  conference  made  such  allusion  to,  am  re* 
presentation  of  the  circumstances  which  occurred  at  Fell  s  Point,  as  he  knew 
to  be  untrue,  and  which  made  on  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  confer- 
ence, such  an  impression  against  me  as  a  dishoricst  man,  as  induced  them  to 
reject  my  application  for  license  to  preach,  notwithstanding  I  had  the  ne- 
cessary recommendation  fron.  the  quarterly  meeting  conference  of  which 
1  was  a  member. 

Spkcification  3.  That  the  said  Alexander  M'Caine,  did  on  the  24th  day  of 
June  last,  or  thereabouts,  at  Marcella  Chapel,,  before  the  congregation  then 
and  there  assembled  for  public  worship,  make  allusion  to  some  person  who 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  holding  public  worship  in  thai  place  and  who  had 
been  at  some  former  time  compelled  to  flj  from  justice  to  avoid  the  peni- 
tentiary, (inuendo)  meaning  thereby  me  the  subscriber,  as  will  appear  Pot 
only  from  his  having  made  the  same  allegations  in  the  di.strict  confer- 
ence, but  from  his  private  comnmnication  myde  to  Mr.  Rezin  Wortliington, 
and  to  Mr.  Nicholas  Owings,  as  will  appt  a'-  by  reference  to  certificates  So. 
5  and  7."  [A  true  copy,} 

August  1,  182r.  .T-  M.  HANSON, 


vm 


pacy>»  How  far  the  other  charges  may  have  contributed  t& 
my  fxpulsion,  I  cannot  say  :  but  I  believe  the  principal  cause 
was,  I  he  writing  of  the  pamphlet.  To  try  the  merits  of  this 
book,  in  the  answering  of  which,  I  have  reason  to  believe  exer- 
tions were  made  to  obtain  the  aid  of  Doctors  of  Divinity,  Mas- 
ters of  Arts,  preachers  old  and  young,  and  even  the  bishops 
themselves,  Nicholas  Harden,  Samuel  Gore,  and  Edward  Hall, 
three  local  preachers,  were  appointed  a  committee.  These 
men  are  as  capable  of  judging  of  the  merits  of  the  work,  as  they 
are  of  Newton's  Principia.  They  know  as  much,  perhaps,  of 
Church  History,  as  they  do  of  algebra  or  conick  sections.  They 
were  not,  however,  disqualified  by  their  ignorance  to  ansiver 
Mr.  Hanson's  purpose,  or  the  purpose  of  Mr  Hanson's  masters, 
if  he  was  directed  to  these  measures  by  the  bishops,  or  by  any 
one  of  them. 

It  would  seem,  that  the  church  authorities  and  the  friends  of 
Methodist  episcopacy  did  not  think  it  safe  to  rest  their  cause, 
upon  the  attacks  made  upon  my  character  ;  it  was,  therefore, 
thought  necessary,  that  something  should  be  done,  which,  under 
the  semblance  of  argument,  might  have  the  appearance  of  con- 
futing my  book.  To  write  it  down,  the  Rev.  John  Emory,  D.  D. 
took  up  his  mighty  pen ;  how  far  he  has  succeeded,  an  en* 
lightened  public  will  judge.  Whether  he  was  stimulated  to  the 
undertaking  by  personal  animosity — by  vanity — by  a  hope  of 
agsrrandizement — by  the  importunity  of  the  friends  of  Methodist 
episcopacy — or  by  higher  motives,  one  thing  is  .certain  :  in  pre- 
paring his  "  Defence,  &c."  he  had  every  facility,  and  in  ob- 
taining for  it  a  circulation  and  a  character,  he  had  every  advan- 
tage he  could  possibly  have  desired. 

He  tell*  us  in  his  preface,  that  he  "  asks  not  for  charity,  in 
the  cold  sense  of  that  abused  term  "  That  ail  he  "  demands  ia 
simple  justice — sheer  justice."  In  (;onformity  with  his  wishes, 
I  shai!  endeavour  to  do  him  "  sheer  justice  ;"  and,  as  is  my  man- 
ner, 1  shall  "  use  great  plainness  of  speech."  The  circum- 
stances under  which  I  write,  require  that  I  should  be  plain. — 
Thev  have  left  me  no  alternative.  My  work  has  been  attacked 
by  so  many  pens.  My  character  has  been  assailed  from  so 
many  quarters.  So  many  base  stratagems  have  been  resorted 
to,  with  a  view  of  injuring  my  reputation,  weakening  my  influ- 
ence, and  destroying  my  temporal  interests,  that  men,  who  know 
the  value  of  character,  will  not,  it  is  hoped,  think  I  have  trans- 
cended the  bounds  of  Christian  moderation,  in  exposing  these 
proceedings.  From  men  who  can  commend  a  work  which  I 
am  compelled  to  believe  was  written  to  etlect  these  purposes,  I 
cai.not,  I  do  not  anticipate  any  approbation  On  the  contrary, 
I  know  they  will  be  exasperated  iu  proportion  as  it  is  found  that  I 
am  able  to  repel  their  attacks,  and  establ'.>«h  the  views  I  have 
taken  of  Methodist  episcopacy.     I   write   not,  therefore,  for 


IX 

them.  1  neither  seek  their  applause,  nor  dread  their  arguments. 
I  write  in  justification  of  my  own  character,  and  in  defence  of 
the  truth,  and  shall  leave  to  an  impartial  public  to  pronounce 
the  verdict. 

In  reviewing  Mr.  E*s  book,  I  have  followed  the  divisions  of 
his  work,  and  have  even  adopted  the  titles  of  his  sections.  It 
is  respectfully  suggested  to  the  reader,  that  he  read  a  section  in 
the  "  Defence  of  our  fathers"  first,  and  then  read  the  review  of 
that  section  in  my  work.  By  this  means  he  will  be  able  to  keep 
clear  of  all  entanglement  and  confusion — ^judge  of  the  merits  of 
the  respective  works — and  determine  on  which  side  lies  the 
truth.  ALEXANDER  M'CAINE. 

Baltimore,  December,  1828. 


A  DEFENCE,  &c. 


Sefore  I  enter  upon  a  review  of  Mr.  Emory's  book,  I  shall 
sav  a  few  words  respecting  its  title.  It  may  not  be  generally 
known,  or  remembered,  that  when  the  work  was  first  announced, 
in  the  "  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,"  it  was  announced 
under  the  name  of  the  "Theory  and  History  of  Methodist  epis- 
copacy." Why  was  this  title  changed  ?  Did  the  aurhor  think, 
that  the  work  did  not  correspond  with  the  title  ?  And  that  llie 
public  would  be  induced  to  expect  more  from  the  title,  than 
they  would  find  realized  in  the  book  .''  Or,  did  he  think  that 
"  Theory  and  History"  was  too  cold  and  uninteresting  a  title, 
and  that  to  call  it  "  A  Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  was  much  more 
likely  to  promote  its  sale — awaken  the  sympathies  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  for  "  the  fair  and  honorable  fame  of  our 
fathers*' — arouse  their  indignation  against  the  man  who  under- 
took to  examine  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  episcopacy — and 
promote  the  views  of  the  author,  by  fixing  on  him,  the  eyes  of 
all,  as  being  the  man,  who  best  deserved  to  be  advanced  to  the 
episcopate  .-*  Be  the  reason  what  it  may,  the  name  of  the  work 
was  changed,  and  it  is  now  circulated  through  the  country,  by 
the  travelling  preachers  and  others,  under  the  imposing  title  of 
*'  A  Defence  of  our  Fathers." 

And  who  does  the  author  mean  by  "  our  fathers"  ?  It  has 
been  universally  admitted,  that  Messrs.  John  and  Chailes  Wes- 
ley were  the  founders  of  that  religious  denomination  of  people, 
called  Methodists.  To  them  the  name  was  originally  applied. 
Iheir  names  were  appended  to  the  general  rules,  by  which  the 
societies  are  governed.  Mr.  John  Wesley  claimed  the  title  of 
"  Father"  for  himself,  and  says,  in  a  letter  addi'essed  to  Mv. 
Asbury,  dated  London,  September  20th,  1788,  "You  are  the 
elder  brother  of  the  American  Methodists  I  am,  under  God, 
the  father  of  the  whole  family."  Although  these  were  the 
fathers  and  founders  of  Methodism,  yet  neither  of  them  h^s  any 
share  in  Mr.  E's  "Defence."  Of  Mr.  Charles  Wesley  nothing 
is  said,  only  in  an  incidental  way  ;  and  how  Mr.  John  Wesley 
has  been  defended,  will  be  seen  hereafter. 

As  the  "  fathers'*  of  the  Methodists  are  passed  over  in  silence, 
it  is  probable  Mr.  E.  intended  that  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury, 
the  latter  of  whom  Mr.  Wesley  calls  the  "  elder  brother,"' 
should  be  considered  as  "our  fathers,"  I  must  be  permitted, 
here  to  supply  the  omission  of  their  names,  as  1  do  not  find  thai 
the  local  preachers  who  first  formed  societies  in   Amei'ica — 


12 

ihe  travelling  preachers  who  came  over  from  England — the 
preachers  who  composed  the  conference  of  1784 — Mr.  What- 
coat  who  was  elected  the  first  bishop,  after  the  church  had  been 
organized — Mr.  McKendree,  now  the  senior  bishop,  or  any  of 
the  gentlemen  associated  with  him  in  the  episcopacy,  receive  any 
notice,  or  partake  in  the  slightest  degree,  of  any  advantage  from 
Mr.  E's  "  masterly  defence." 

But  why  does  Mr.  E.  more  than  any  other  man  out  of  one 
thousand  five  hundred  travelling  preachers,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  numerous  personal  friends  that  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury 
had,  among  local  preachers  and  laymen,  enter  the  lists  in  '  de- 
fence of  our  fathers  "  .?  Was  it  in  consequence  of  a  vote  of 
any  of  the  annual  conferences  .'*  Was  it  because  there  was  no 
man  competent  to  the  undertaking  but  himself.?  Was  it  because 
he  was  so  long,  and  so  intimately  acquainted  with  these  gentle- 
men, whose  "  defence''  as  he  calls  it,  he  undertakes  ?  Was 
it  because  his  attachment  to  them  was  so  strong,  that  any  at- 
tack, real  or  imaginary,  made  on  their  "  fair  fame"  would  stir 
the  blood  within  him  to  espouse  their  cause,  and  induce  him  to 
engage  in  a  controversy,  for  which,  from  disposition  and  habit, 
he  had  such  a  settled  and  inveterate  aversion  ?  Nothing  of  all 
this.'  For,  although  Mr.  E.  writes  as  if  he  was  the  greatest,  if 
not  the  only  personal  friend,  that  Dr.  Coke  or  Mr.  Asbury  ever 
liad  ;  yet,  I  believe,  he  never  saw  Dr  Coke  or  received  a  line 
from  his  pen.  And  as  for  Mr.  Asbury,  if  he  had  any  acquaint- 
ance with  him,  it  must  have  been  very  superficial.  There  was 
nothing  that  could'be  called  an  intimacy  : — there  was,  perhaps, 
not  even  any  correspondence.  As  there  could  be  nothing,  of  a 
strong  personal  nature,  to  interest  Mr.  E.  more  than  any  other 
man,  we  must  look  for  some  other  reason  for  writing  the  "  De- 
fence of  our  Fathers,"  than  what  grows  out  of  personal  esteem, 
and  disinterested  friendship. 

He  tells  us,  however,  that  the  "  fair  and  honourable  fame  of 
our  fathers  is  a  treasure  committed  to  our  common  trust ;  in 
which  all  who  bear  their  name  ought  to  feel  an  interest  ;  and  to 
defend  which  is  our  common  duty."  This,  to  be  sure,  is  very- 
specious  :  but  it  will  admit  of  some  doubt,  with  those  who  are 
inlirnatdy  acquainted  w'kh  Mr.  E.  if,  notwithstanding  all  he  says 
about  "duty,"  he  would  not  have  left  the  "  duty" unperformed, 
if  he  had  not  thought,  that  the  present  occasion  furnished  a  most 
happy  opportunity,  of  indulging  his  vanity — gratifying  his  malig- 
nity— and  promoting  his  views  of  ambition  and  aggrandizement. 

At  the  general  conference  in  1824,  Mr.  E.  had  been  put  in 
nomination  for  a  bishop.  At  that  conference  he  received  sever- 
al votes  for  the  office.  His  prospects  of  arriving  at  the  episco- 
pate, at  some  future,  perhaps  at  no  distant  day,  were  as  favor- 
able as  were  those  of  his  rival.  The  hope,  therefore,  of  being 
raised  to  that  elevated  station,  may  have  had  a  great  influence 


13 

in  inciting  him  to  perform  this  "  duty."  And  as  the  "  History 
and  Mystery"  might  gradually  and  effectually  sap  the  founda- 
tions of  Methodist  ei)is^copacy,  if  suffered  to  pass  without  an  at- 
tack, it  became  necessary  to  make  a  show  of  defence,  to  pre- 
vent, if  possible,  such  an  event.  Mr.  E.  knew  also,  that  he 
would  be  obliged  to  relinquish  the  book  agency,  to  which  he 
had  been  appointed  by  the  general  conference;  and  in  view  of 
this  relinquishment,  a"  Defence  of  our  fathers"  could  be  under- 
taken, which,  under  the  appearance  of  vindicating  the  char- 
acters of  the  dead,  might  effectually  promote  the  views  and  in- 
terests of  the  living.  Besides,  there  is  in  the  view  of  a  proud 
man,  so  much  honor  in  being  a  bishop  ;  —there  is  in  the  view 
of  an  ambitious  man,  so  much  power  and  so  many  privileges  con- 
nected with  the  office,  that  it  is  no  wonder  if  Mr.  E  was  trans- 
ported with  the  idea  of  being  exalted  to  that  station.  To  a  man 
of  his  disposhion,  the  very  term  is  capable  of  producing  such  a 
train  of  pleasing  ideas  in  the  head,  and  so  many  delightful  sen- 
sations in  the  heart,  that  to  wish  to  be  a  bishop  was  too  power- 
ful a  temptation  to  be  resisted.  Who  can  tell,  what  thrilling 
emotions  he  would  feel,  when  he  would  hear,  or  read  an  ap- 
pointment announced  in  these  words;  ''Bishop  Emory  will 
preach  in  Light  street  church  next  Sunday  morning  at  10  o''clk." 
What  ecstacy  to  see  his  likeness,  executed  by  Longacre  in  his 
best  style  of  engraving,  put  in  the  Magazine,  placed  in  the 
windows  of  print  shops,  or  hung  up  in  the  parlors  of  the  wealthy 
Methodists,  with  this  inscription,  "  John  Emory,  D  D.  one  of 
the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church." 

In  addition  to  the  influence  which  the  love  of  honor,  and  the 
love  of  power  may  have  had,  the  love  of  money  may  also  have 
had  a  share,  in  bringing  forth  the  "  Defence  of  our  Fathers." — 
For  when  a  bishop  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  is  elected, 
he  is  elected  a  bishop  for  life.  His  support,  and  the  support  of 
his  family,  is  no  longer  precarious  or  uncertain,  depending  on 
the  stewards,  or  on  the  voluntary  contributions  ot  the  members. 
It  is  from  the  book  concern  that  he  draws  his  support  ;  and 
this  support  is  commensurate  with  all  his  wants,  of  whatever 
nature,  and  to  whatever  extent,  they  may  be.  This  is  an  ob- 
ject worth  seeking.  This  is  a  "  treasure"  for  which  some 
would  not  be  unwilling  to  write  a  "  Defence  ;"  a  "  treasure," 
which  it  is  pretty  plain,  is  more  prized,  than  "  the  fair  and  ho- 
nourable fame  of  our  fathers." 

I  o  make  his  "  Defence"  popular,  Mr.  E.  has  taken  great 
pains  to  make  his  readers  believe,  that  I  am  the  personal  enemy 
of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  ;  that  I  have  written  my  "•  History 
and  Mystery"  "  with  all  the  malignity  of  which  the  human 
heart  is  capable  ;"  and  that  with  great  ''  unkindness  I  pursue 
Mr.  Asbury  in  his  grave."*     Def.  p.  36.     I  must  be  allowed, 

*Mr.  Wesley  had  the  same  charge  preferred  against  him.     «'  His  sacrile- 


14 

however  to  say,  that  there  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in  all  this  : 
so  fiir  from  it,  that  I  possessed  the  confidence  and  friendsiiip  of 
both  these  gentlemen  as  long  as  they  lived.  With  Dr  Coke,  it 
is  true,  I  was  not  so  intimate,  as  I  was  with  Mr.  Asbury  ;  owing 
to  the  Doctor's  residing,  principally,  in  Europe.  Nevertheless, 
I  corresponded  with  him,  until  he  sailed  for  India.  But  with 
Mr.  Asbury  I  was  particularly  intimate,  and  have  good  reason 
to  believe,  that  there  were  (ew  men,  for  whom  he  enlertained 
a  greater  affection,  than  he  did  for  me.  It  is  therefore,  a  gra- 
tuitous assertion  for  Mr.  E  to  make,  that  I  "  have  taken  advan- 
tage of  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  silence  which  death  has  im- 
posed on  the  accused,  to  impute  to  them  unheard  of  frauds  and 
forgeries,  which  in  their  life  time,  no  man  living,  had  tlie  effron- 
tery even  to  insinuate."  Def  p.  54.  If,  by  this  assertion,  Mr. 
E.  means,  that  I  would  not  have  published  the  views  I  now  en- 
tertain, of  the  origin  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  if  Dr.  Coke  or 
Mr.  Asbury  were  alive,  he  must  allow  me  to  tell  him,  he  is  very 
much  mistaken.  Had  I,  before  their  death,  the  light  on  the 
subject,  which  I  now  have,  I  cannot  conceive  any  reason  why 
I  should  have  been  deterred  from  giving  publicity  to  my  views: 
but  I  had  not.  For,  I  never  examined  the  subject  until  lately, 
always  receiving  as  true,  the  statements  published  in  the  book 
of  Discipline  and  Minutes  of  conference.  If  he  means  that  I  did 
not,  or  would  not  tell^Mr  Asbury,  at  any  time,  what  I  thought 
to  be  wrong,  he  is  again  mistaken.  On  every  subject, on  which 
I  expressed  an  opinion,  1  did  it  according  to  my  apprehensions 
of  inith ;  sometimes  of  himself,  sometimes  of  his  administra- 
tion, and  sometimes  of  his  colleague ;  and  never  received  a 
word  of  censure  from  him,  for  doing  so.  Indeed  it  never  was 
my  manner,  or  disposition  to  avail  myself  o!  the  absence  of  men, 
to  say  of  them  what  I  believed  it  to  be  my  duty  to  say.  And 
if  the  reader  will  pardon  the  appearance  of  egotism,  I  will  tell 
him,  that  since  God  was  pleased  to  convert  my  soul,  I  have 
made  it  a  rule  not  to  say  any  thing  of  a  man  in  his  absence,  that 
I  would  not  say  in  his  presence  ; — that  frum^hat  period  to  this, 
my  heart  has  been  free  from  the  fear  of  man ; — and  that  I  am 
not  now  conscious,  of  having  flattered  a  man  in  all  that  time. — 
This  is  not  the  smooth  way  to  heaven,  but  as  far  as  I  under- 
stand the  principles  and  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  the 
way  that  is  prescribed  ;  and  this  is  the  way  I  choose  to  walk  in. 

To  sliew  the  reader,  that  I  am  not  the  man,  that  Mr.  E.  would 
fain  make  his  readers  believe  me  to  be,  and  to  prove,  that  I 
possessed  Mr.  Asbury's  confidence  and  friendship  in  a  very 
high  des^ree,  I  shall  submit  a  few  extracts  from  some  of  his  letters. 

giuus  i.i4  :d  violates  the  ashes  of  the  dead,  and  traduces  the  character  of  Mr. 
W  hitefield."  "  Wuh  ungoijly  craft  he  claws  up  the  ashes  of  the  dead."— 
'^Vesley's  Works,  vol.  x.  p.  484. 


15 

JVorfolk,  March  29lh,  1799. 
•*  My  very  dear  Brother, 

I  had  an  impression  upon  my  knees,  that  you  would  be  the 
most  acceptable  person,  to  take  a  station  in  Norfolk  in  Virgin- 
ia for  the  present  year.  My  confidence  in  you  as  a  man  ofpety, 
conscience,  and  honor  is  hereby  signified  &c. 

Thy  soul's  real  friend, 

Francis  Asbury." 

Baltimore,  July  I6th,  1806. 
*'  My  dear  Son, 

II  I  loved  thee  less,  I  should  not  put  myself  to  pain  and  scrib- 
bling. I  love  you,  you  know.  I  have  always  manifested  it. — 
Your  honest  hluntness  I  approve  &c. 

As  ever,  F.  Asbury." 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  understand  the  import  of  the 
following  request,  it  may  be  proper  to  inform  him,  that  for  sev- 
eral years,  before  Mr,  Asbury's  death,  he  had  frequent  conver- 
sations with  me  about  undertaking  the  compilation  of  a  work, 
to  be  extracted  from  the  writings  of  the  most  pious  and  practi- 
cal commentators  on  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This  work  he  fre- 
quently urged  me  to  undertake  ;  and  in  his  peculiarly  sen- 
tentious, and  emphatic  manner  of  expressing  himself,  he  used 
to  call  it  a  "  focus."  The  following  extract  refers  to  this  sub- 
ject. 

Philadelphia,  April  20th,  1815. 

"  Dear  M'Calne, 

This  following  I  write,  highly  momentous.  The  focus  upon 
the  great  book.  Have  you  begun  ?  Keep  your  book  always 
by  you.  Begin  book  after  book ;  general  history  and  contents  : 
mind,  mind,  mind.  I  stir  up  your  pure  mind  ;  make  the  best 
of  every  moment.  A  small  introduction,  of  a  £ew  pages,  will 
tell  what  stations  the  author  hath  filled.  It  hath  been  upon  my 
mind  for  years  ;  but  w^ho  I  should  fix  upon,  it  is  Alexander 
M  Caine.  I  must  as  your  bishop,  father  and  brother  bind  it 
upon  you. 

As  formerly  and  as  ever  thme, 

Francis  Asbury." 

Shortly  after  the  date  of  the  above  letter,  and  not  long  before 
his  death,  having  heard  that  I  had  lost  my  companion,  he  wrote 
to  me,  pressing  me  to  enter  into  the  travelling  connexion  again, 
and  to  commence  the  work  which  he  had  so  often  urged  me  to 
begin, 

Philadelphia,  July  1st,  1 81 5. 
"  My  dear  Son, 

You  cannot  ride  a  district  or  circuit ;  you  are  past  the  meri- 
dian Still  we  have  work  enough.  Should  you  return  to  your 
moMier's  house,  the  chambers  of  her  that  bore  you,  perhaps 
you  might  be  employed  orderly  and  quarterly  in  Augusta,  Sa- 


16 

yannah,  Columbia,  Charleston,  Camden,  Fayette,  Georgetown, 
Wilmington,  Nevvbern,  Norfolk.  You  could  not  be  too  much 
confined.  You  are  very  positive  about  the  key  ;  but  where 
materials  can  be  had  of  the  very  best  kind,  you  can  do  it,  if  you 
give  up  your  time  and  mind,  and  only  be  called  off  to  preach. 
Those  leisure  hours  might  be  well  spent  for  future  generations. 
1  have  been  reading  these  fifty  years,  and  have  never  seen  what 
meeteth  my  mind,  I  mean  an  universal  focus  taken  from  all 
authors  worthy  of  notice. 

Thine  the  same, 

Francis  Asbury." 

I  will  not  ask  Mr.  E.  if  he  can  produce  any  thing  like  the 
above.  1  am  sure  he  cannot.  These  extracts,  therefore  re- 
fute the  bitter,  calumnious  charges  which  he  has  scattered 
through  his  book  ;  and  furnish  testimony  from  Mr.  Asbury's 
own  hand  that  he  "  loved  me'* — that  I  possessed  his  "  confi- 
dence as  a  man  o(  piety ^  conscience  and  /lonor' — that  he  "ap- 
proved of  my  honest  bluntness" — that  he  made  choice  of  me 
for  executing  "  a  highly  momentous"  work — and  that  he  was 
very  solicitous  to  have  me  again  in  the  travelling  connexion. — 
How  could  he  do  all  this,  if  he  believed  me  to  be  such  a  man  as 
Mr,  E.  has  represented  me  to  be.  In  Mr.  E's  efforts  to  black- 
en me,  he  spots  Mr.  Asbury  ;  and  wounds  him,  with  the  same 
weapon,  with  which  he  strikes  at  me.  Such  is  the  way  that 
this  champion  wields  his  weapons  in  his  "  miansioerable  and 
masterly  defence  of  our  fathers."  There  is  only  one  way  in 
which  he  can  avoid  this  conclusion,  which  is,  to  prove  that  I 
have  changed.  This  I  challenge  him  to  do.  He  would  be 
glad  if  he  could  fix  this  imputation  upon  me.  But  the  reader 
will  allow  me  to  tell  him,  I  have  not  changed.  I  entertain 
the  same  love  of  truth  that  I  always  did.  1  have  the  same  hatred 
for  falsehood  that  I  always  had.  I  detest  loic  cunning  and  in- 
trigue as  much  as  1  ever  did.  And  as  for  my  "  honest  blunt- 
ness,"  which  Mr.  Asbury  approved,  but  which  some  men  hate, 
I  think  it  is  very  likely  it  will  go  with  me  down  to  my  grave. 

Having  said  this  much  respecting  the  title  of  the  book,  and 
the  motives  of  the  author,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  make  a  pass- 
jug  remark  on  the  style  of  the  work,  or  the  manner  in  which 
the  "  duty''  has  been  performed.  This  is  the  more  necessary, 
as  I  have  heard  it  said,  "  the  Defence  of  our  Fathers"  is  a  "  mas- 
fcrly  and  unanswerable  production."  I  was  not  surprised  at 
this  declaration,  considering  the  quarter  from  which  it  came, 
and  the  persons,  by  whom  it  was  made.  For  there  are  many, 
very  many,  who  are  ready  to  applaud  what  they  do  not  under- 
stand. That  Mr.  E.  as  a  writer,  is  deficient,  in  what  critics 
consider  the  first  and  most  essential  quality  of  good  writing,  I 
mean  perspicuity,  no  man,  who  has  read  his  "  Defence,"  and 


17 

who  is  capable  of  jufl£?ing,  will  deny.  Without  gteppiug  to  ac^. 
connf:  for  tfiis  defect,  I  will  say,  if  in  any  place,  in  the  follow* 
ing-  review,  I  have  misappreliended  his  meaning,  it  must  be  at- 
tributed to  the  obscurity  of  his  style.  This  obscurity  renders 
him.  as  he  himself  said  of  bishop  White  in  his  controversy  with 
that  gentleman,  "hard  to  be  understood,  and  of  course,  hard  to 
be  answered." 

— e^s^— 

Section  I. —  On  Episcopaey. 

In  my  "History  and  Mystery,"  I  inquire,  page  9,  "what 
views,  do  ecclesiastical  writers  give  us,  of  an  episcopal  form 
of  church  government.-*"  Which  form  of  government,  it  is  said 
in  the  minutes  of  conference,  was  "  recommended''''  to  the  Amer- 
ican Methodists  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  was  adopted  in  conse- 
quence of  his  '■'■counsel.''''  In  answer  to  this  question,  I  collect- 
ed and  presented  the  views  of  dilFerent  classes  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal vv)'iters  upon  the  subject.  I  did  this,  conceiving  it  would 
be  |)roper,  at  the  very  outset,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  "  the  episcopal  form  of  government,"  that  my  readers 
might  know  the  point  of  my  inquiry,  and  understand,  precisely, 
the  subject  of  my  investigation.  The  first  of  the  writers  from 
whom  1  quoted  defines  it  thus;  "Episcopacy  is  that  form  of 
oliurch  government,  in  w  hich  diocesan  bishops  are  established, 
as  distinct  from  and  superior  to  presbyters*''  And  all  the  aa* 
thorities  which  I  gave,  although  they  differ  upon  other  mat- 
ters, agree  in  this  cardinal  point,  that  bishops  are  a  distinct 
order  from  presbyters  and  superior  to  them.  The  reader  is  re* 
quested  to  bear  in  mind,  that  it  constituted  no  part  of  my  in» 
quiry,  whether  episcopacy  is  of  "divine  appointment;"  or 
whether  bishops  are  a  "distinct  order*'  from  presbyters,  by 
"  divine  right,''^  or  "  apostolic  succession.''^  My  inquiry  was,  CI) 
whether  bishops  are  a  distinct  order  from  presbyters.''  And 
(2)  if  bishops  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  are  a  distinct 
order  from  presbyters  and  superior  to  them,  by  whose  ap- 
pointment were  they  made.?  These  are  the  points  to  which 
my  inquiry  was  directed,  and  to  them,  I  confined  myself,  in  my 
letter  to  the  bisliops.  I  asked  them,  "  whether  there  is  any  pa- 
per to  be  found,  in  which,  Mr.  Wesley  gave  "coMn.se/"  to  Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Asbury  or  any  other  person  or  persons,  to  ordain  a 
third  order  of  ministers  in  our  church,  meaning  by  that  phrase, 
an  order  of  bishops,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  presbyters? 
His.  and  Mys  p.  74.  The  same  question  was  proposed  in  my 
letter  addressed  to  each  of  the  six  preachers,  who  were 
members  of  the  general  conference  in  1784. 

From  this  plain  and  simple  statement,  every  one  will  perceive 
tlie  matter  of  inquiry,  and  must  acknowledge,  that  the  question 


18 

is  to  free  from  all  abstruseness,  that  in  the  judgement  of  common 
sense,  there  could  have  been  no  great  difficulty  in  giving  an 
answer.  But  to  avoid  coming  fairly  to  the  question,  Mr.  E. 
finds  himself  under  a  necessity,  to  entangle  the  subject,  by  in- 
troducing it  in  alliance  with  ''divine  right?''  This  is  unfair; 
and  although  it  shews  the  ingenuity  of  the  man,  in  forming  this 
holy  alliance^  it  will  not  escape  the  attention  and  censure  of 
the  intelligent  and  the  pious.  He  says,  "  Mr.  M'Caine  repre- 
sents the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  bishops  to  be  an  order 
of  ministers  distinct  from  presbyters  by  divine  appointment^  to 
whom  the  power  of  ordination  is  reserved,  by  the  same  appoint- 
ment, and  is  the  chief  mark  of  their  distinction;  and  in  whom, 
as  successors  to  the  apostles,  is  vested  the  exclusive  right  of 
granting  the  divine  commission  to  execute  the  ministerial  of- 
fice." Def  p.  20,  Now  this  is  a  misrepresentation;  for  I  say 
no  such  thing.  I  neither  gave  "  divine  appointment  &c."  as  my 
own  sentiments,  nor  as  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term.  I 
did  not  believe  that  these  sentiments  were  the  sentiments  of  even 
a  majority  of  episcopalians.  That  I  quoted  them  as  the  opin- 
ions oi  some  ecclesiastical  writers,  I  admit.  So  did  Mr.  E. 
when  he  gave  the  same  opinions  from  Dr.  Miller.  Would  it  be 
fair  in  me  to  say,  that  Mr.  E.  and  Dr  Miller  represented  the 
"  common  acceptation,''''  of  the  term  bishops,  to  be  an  order  of 
ministers  distinct  from  presbyters,  by  "■divine  appointment'''' 
&c.,  because  some  quotations  from  Dr,  Miller,  who  giv^es  (he 
difl'erent  views  of  ecclesiastical  writers,  respecting  an  episcopal 
form  of  church  government,  contain  these  sentiments.''  Surely 
not;  especially,  when  not  more  than  one  out  of  twenty  of  the 
episcopalians,  hold  these  sentiments.  The  fact  is,  I  made  no 
inquiry  respecting  bishops  being  a  distinct  order  by  "divine 
appointment;  divine  right,"  or  "  apostolic  succession"  Mr.  E. 
knew  very  well  that  my  questions  had  no  reference  to  these 
things.  1  consider  his  statement  as  a  specimen  of  his  artifice  to 
jnislead  his  readers;  but  it  is  certainly  too  glaringly  fallacious. 
lo  escape  detection,  and  too  palpable  to  be  imposed  on  men 
of  gense. 

Long  before  I  wrote  my  "History  and  Mystery,"  ^  I 
knew  there  were  some  writers,  who  use  the  words  bishops  and 
presbyteTS  synonymously:  that  there  were  others,  who  make 
a  distinction  in  the  orders,  representing  the  bishops  to  be  su- 
perior to  presbyters;  yet  this  distinction  and  superiority,  they 
represent  as  only  of  human  appointment.*  Whilst  others  con- 
sider bishops  to  be  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  presbyters, 
not  by  human  appointment  and  expediency,  but  by  "  divine  ap- 

*  "  The  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  established  in  Eng-land,  was 
©ne  of  the  first  grie\ances  of  whicli  the  Puritans  complained.  This  contro« 
versv  was  not  carried  on  with  animosity  and  zeal,  as  long  as  the  English 
bishops  pretended  to  derive  their  dignity  from  no  other  source  than  the 


19 

point menC — "  divine  right^"^  and  "  apostolic  succession^  I 
wished,  therefore,  to  knew,  in  what  sense  a  bishop  in  the 
Methodist  ej)isc  opal  church  is  to  be  considered;  whether  as  a  dis- 
tinct order  fiom  presbyters  and  superior  to  them  ;  and  if  supe- 
rior to  them,  bj  what  appointment,  "  human,""  or  "divine." 

But,  Mr.  E.  says,  I  ought  to  have  known,  "  that  there  are 
ecclesiastical  writers  who  describe  episcopacy  with  other  fea- 
troTS."  Dei  p.  5.  Here  his  language  is  equivocal.  If  by  the 
phrase  "  other  features,"  he  means,  that  there  are  "other  fea- 
tures" belonging  to  episcopacy,  which  I  have  omitted  to  give, 
his  "other  features"  are  to  be  superadded,  to  those  which  I 
have  presented,  to  make  the  likeness  complete.  To  supply 
this  omission  was  his  design,  I  suppose,  in  making  his  numer- 
ous extracts.  But,  notwithstanding  he  draws  so  largely  on  Dr. 
Miller  and  bishop  Stil'ingfleet,  will  it  not  be  somewhat  of  a 
curiosity  to  tind,  that  although  nine  pages  of  his  book  are  filled 
•with  extracts  to  prove,  that  "other  features"  ought  to  be  added 
to  what  1  have  given  ;  yet  these  "  other  features"  are  identi- 
cally the  same,  with  those  which  were  given  by  me.  Only  let 
the  reader  attend  to  what  I  have  extracted,  and  he  will  find 
this  to  be  the  case.  My  authorities  represent  episcopacy  in 
the  following  points  of  light.  1.  "  Episcopacy  is  that  form  of 
church  government,  in  which  diocesan  bishops  are  established, 
as  distinct  from,  and  superior  to  presbyters."  Buck's  Theo. 
Die.  Art.  episcopacy.  2.  "Episcopalians,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word,  are  those,  who  maintain,  that  episcopacy  is  of  apos- 
tolic institution  ;  or  that  the  church  of  Christ  has  ever  been 
governed  by  three  distinct  orders,  bishops,  presbyters  or 
priests,  and  deacons."  R.  Adams's  Religious  World,  vol.  ^, 
Art.  Episcopalians.  3.  "  Bishops  were  ordained  in  all  church- 
es by  the  apostles,  and  derived  from  them,  in  a  constant  succes- 
sion." Arch-bishop  Potter  p.  155.  Again,  "It  is  a  principle 
universally  established  among  episcopalians,  that  a  succession 
from  the  apostles,  in  the  order  of  bishops,  as  an  order  superior 
to  and  distinct  from  presbyters,  is  a  requisite,  without  which  a 
valid  Christian  ministry  cannot  be  preserved  ;  and  that  such 
bishops  alone,  possess  the  power  of  ordaining  and  commission' 
ing  ministers  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ.''' 

The  reader  is  requested  to  notice,  that  iiere  are  three  difler 
ent  views  of  episcopacy,  all  agreeing  in  one  point,  and  yet  uif 
fering  in  others.  The  point  in  which  they  all  agree  is  this  : 
that  bishops  are  a  distinct  order  fiom  presbyters,  and  superior 
to  them.  This  is  the  light  in  which  all  episcopalian.s,  strictly, 
speaking,  consider  this  order  of  ministers;  and  this  is   what  I 

laws  of  their  country,  and  pleaded  a  rig'ht  purely  human,  to  the  r»nk  they 
held  in  the  clmrcli;  '  Wesley's  Church  History,  A'ol  8.  p.  247.  See,  rIsb, 
Buck's  Theo.  Die.  Art.  Bisliop. 


20 

consider  the  common  acceptation  of  llic  term.  But,  in  m  Mr. 
E's  quotations,  so  in  mine,  episcopalians  ditTer  amon,^^  tlienp 
selves,  with  respect  to  the  origin  of  episcopacv,  sor-xic  consid- 
ering it  of  "  human  institution  ;'"  and  others,  of  '•  divine  apnoint-^ 
ment."  ' ' 

But  if,  hy  the  phrase  "  otlier  features,"  Mr.  E.  means  tliat 
the  features  of  episcopacy  wfiicli  I  gave,  are  not  true  and  cor- 
rect ones  ; — (hat  I  have  drawn  a  caricature  instead  of  a  perfect 
likeness  ;  and  that  I  have  misrepresented  the  subject  ahoge- 
ther  ;  then,  I  suppose,  he  means  by  an  exhibition  of  kis  "  otiser 
features,"  to  correct  my  mistake,  and  set  me,  and  my  reader.-.', 
right.  But  what,  if  Mr.  E.  shoukl  fail  to  accomplish  tliis  * 
What,  if  after  all  his  vapouring,  it  shall  be  found,  that  Ids 
"  other  features"  of  episcopacy  are  the  very  same  which  I  gave, 
only  set  out  in  a  different  dress.?  It'  this*  be  the  case,  w!io  is 
guilty  Qf'-'misrepresenlation''^  ?  He  purports  to  give  his  readers 
"other  features,"  differing  from  those  which  1  gave,  and  then 
gives  them  precisely  the  same.  The  reader  wiU  now  hear  Mr. 
E.  and  then  compare  his  statement  and  mine  together. 

"It  ought  to  be  understood,  says  Dr.  Samuel  Miller,  that 
among  those  who  espouse  the  episcopal  side,  there  are  tliree 
classes.  The  first  consist  of  those  who  believe,  that  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form  of  eccle- 
siastical government,  to  which  the  church  is  bou[!d  to  adhere  in 
all  ages.  That  every  church  is  free,  consistently  vviih  the  di- 
vine will,  to  frame  her  constitution,  agreeably  to  her  own  views, 
to  the  state  of  society,  and  the  exigence  of  particular  times. — ■ 
These  prefer  the  episcopal  government,  and  some  of  them  be- 
lieve it  was  the  primitive  form  ;  hut  they  consider  it  as  resting 
on  the  ground  of  hximan  expediency  alone,  and  not  of  divine  ap- 
pointment. This  is  well  known  to  have  been  the  o[)inion  of 
arch-bishops  Cranmer,  Grindal  and  AVhitgift,  of  bisliop  Loigi:- 
lon,  of  bishop  Jewel,  of  Dr.  Whittaker,  of  bishop  Reyiiolds,  of 
archbishop  Tillotson,of  bisliop  Burnet,  of  bishop  Croft,  of  Dr. 
Stillingfleet,  and  of  a  long  list  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  di- 
vines of  the  church  of  England,  from  the  reformation  down  to 
the  present  day."     Def  p.  6. 

Before  I  proceed  to  make  farther  extracts,  I  must  be  allowed 
to  otlier  two  remarks  on  this  passage.  First.  I  have  asserted 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  "  Mutual  Rights,"  under  the  signature 
of  "  Nehcmiah,''  that  "neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  laid 
down  any  jiarticular  form  of  ecclesiastical  government."  Se- 
cond. I  never  doubted  nor  denied  "  that  every  church  is  free, 
consistently  with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her  constitution, 
agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the  slate  of  society,  and  the  exi- 
gence of  particular  times."  On  these  points,  there  is  no  dilfer- 
encc  betucen  Mr.  E's  authorities  and  myself;  nor  are  these  the 
points  at  issue.     The  subject  of  inquiry  is  this  ;  if  the  societies. 


21 

CGW  consjiluling  the  Metboclist  episcopal  church,  in  the  exer- 
ei-^e  of  liiPir  ligtu  t(»  frame  their  constilutlon,  preferred,  at  their 
orivanization,  the  episcopal  government^  in  what  light  are  the 
bisliops  of  that  church  to  be  considered  ?  As  mere  presbyters, 
or  as  ail  Older  of  ministers  distinct  from  and  superior  to  pres- 
byters ?  'J'his  is  the  inquiry  under  consideration,  and  Mr.  E. 
knows  it;  and  aUhough  he  may  wish  to  avoid  it,  he  must  be 
kept  to  this  point.  Now  I  say,  that  episcopalians  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  maintain  thai  bishops  are  distinct  from  and 
superior  to  presbyters.  It  remains  foi  Mr  E.  to  prove,  tliat 
the  four  arch-bishops,  the  five  bishops,  and  the  two  doctors, 
whose  names  are  found  in  the  above  paragrapli,  together  with 
along  nameless  "list  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  divines  of 
the  church  of  England"  lieM  the  parUif  of  bishops  and  presby- 
ters, otherwise  1  shall  cJaim  them  all  as  witnesses  in  favor  of 
my  position. 

"  Anotlier  class  of  episcopalians  go  farther.  They  suppose 
that  the  government  of  the  church  by  bishops^  as  a  superior  or- 
der to  presbyters,  was  sanctioned  by  aposloiic  example,  and  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  ail  cliurches  to  imitate  this  example  But  while 
(hey  consider  episcopacy  as  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the 
eburch,  they  grant  it  is,  by  no  means,  necessary  to  her  exis- 
ttnce  ;  and  accoidiiigly,  xvithoiU  hesitation,  acknowledge  as  true 
churches  of  Chi'ist,  nuiny,  in  which  the  episcopal  doctrine  is  re- 
jected, ancfprcsbyterian  principles  made  the  basis  of  ecclesias- 
tical government." 

"  A  third  class  go  much  beyond  either  of  the  former.  While 
(hey  grant  that  God  has  left  men  at  liberty  to  modify  every 
other  kind  cf  government  according  to  circumstances,  they  con- 
fend  that  one  form  of  government  of  the  church  is  unalterably 
fixed  by  divine  appointment  ;  ihat  ibis  form  is  episcopal  ;  that 
it  is  absolutely  csstnliul  to  the  existence  of  the  church  ;  that  of 
course,  wbere\er  it  is  wanting,  there  is  no  church,  no  regular 
ministry,  no  valid  ordinances."     ib. 

Now,  wherein  do  those  "  other  features"  as  Mr.  E.  calls 
them,  diiler  from  the  features  which  1  presented  in  my  book  ,'' 
In  no  respect  whatever.  They  arc  identically  the  same,  as 
may  be  seen  by  the  following  parallelism. 

"  History  and  JSlysleryP  "  JJcjence  of  our  Fathers.'''' 

1.  "  Episcopacy  is  that  form  1.  "These  prefer  the  cpis- 

of  government  in  which  bish-     copal  government,  and  some  of 
ops  are  established  as  distinct     them   believe  that  it   was  the 
from  and   superior  to  presby-     primitive  form  ;  but  they  con-  ' 
(ers.''  p.  9.  fider  it  as  resting  on  the  ground 

of   bun'.an    ex[)»'diency   alone, 
and  not  on  divine  appoiptment.'' 


'22 


2.   "Episcopalians    in   the  2.  "Another  class  of  episco- 

strict  sense   of  the   word  are  palians  suppose,  that  the  gov- 

those,  who  maintain,  that  epis-  emmeni  of  the  churcli  by  bish- 

copacy  is  of  apostolic  inslitu-  ops  as  a  superior  order  to  pi  es- 

tion;   or   that  the   church  of  b}ters  was  sanctioned  by  apos- 

Christ  has  ever  been  governed  tolic  example,  and  that  it  is  the 


by  three  distinct  orders,  bish- 
ops, presbyters  or  priests  and 
deacons."     ib. 

3.  "•  Bishops  were  ordained 
in  all  churches  by  the  apostles, 
and  derived  from  them  in  a 
constant  succession.''  Again, 
^'  It  is  a  principle  universally 
established  among  episcopa- 
lians, that   a  succession    from 


duty  of  all  churches  to  imitate 
this  example."     ih. 

3.  "  A  tJiird  class  go  much 
beyond  either  of  tl>e  former. 
They  contend  that  one  form  of 
government  is  unalterably  fixed 
by  divine  appointment  ;  that 
this  form  is^  episcopal  ;  that  it 
is  absolutely  essential  to   the 


the   apostles   in  the    order  of    existence  of  the  church  ;  that 
bishops,  as  an  order  superior     of  course  wherever  it  is  want- 
to,   and  distinct  from  presby-     ing,  there  is  no  church,  no  reg- 
ters,    is    a    requisite,   without     ular   ministry,  no  valid   ordi- 
which,avalic?  Christian  minis-     nances."     il>, 
try  cannot  be  preserved,  and 
that  such  bishops  alone^  pos- 
sess the  power   of  ordaining 
and  commissioning  ministers  to 
feed  tne  flock  of  Christ."  p.  10. 

In  a  two- penny  pamphlet,  called  an  "  Address"  written  hf 
Dr.  Thomas  E.  Bond,  and  signed  by  "  William  Willdns  chair- 
man and  John  Rowland  secretary,"  it  i^  said  that  I  have  "  mis- 
represented  facts''''  in  my  "Histoiy  and  Mystery  ;"  but  these  gen- 
tlemen have  taken  good  care  to  furnish  no  specifications,  or  olfer 
any  proof  of  their  charge.  I  will  ask  them,  and  all  others  con- 
cerned in  that  address,  if  I  have  '■'■  misrepresenieiP  the  sentiments 
of  ecclesiastical  writers  respecting  episcopacy.  If  they  know 
any  thing  of  the  subject,  they  know  i  have  not.  For  ail  the 
writers,  whom  I  have  quoted,  represent  bishops  as  a  distinct 
order  from  presbyters  and  superior  to  them.  This  is  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  term  bishops,  and  as  such  I  gave  it,  when 
I  expressed  myself  thus  :  "  The  distinction  between  bishops 
and  presbyters  being  the  foundation  of  episcopal  government, 
and  this  distinction  having  no  existence  in  fact,  nor  in  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's creed,  our  episcopal  superstructure  falls  to  the  ground.'"' 
But  can  1  say  that  Mr.  E.  is  guiltless  of  the  charge  of  misrepre- 
sentation ?  I  cannot.  For  he  not  only  maliesme  say,  that "  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  term  bisho])s  is  an  order  of  ministers 
distinct  from  presbyters,  by  divine  appointment  &c."  but  he 
strives  to  make  his  readers  believe,  that  I  represent  these  as 
■'the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury"  Def.  p.  7.  With 


2^ 

kdroitness  he  fastens  upon  the  opinions  of  the  third  or  last  class 
of  episcopalians,  and  represents  these  sentiments  as  mine. — 
"With  more  truth  and  propriety  might  I  attribute  tiiem  to  him: 
for  I  am  arguing  throughout  my  book  against  the  imparity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters.  Whereas  Mr.  E.if  he  means  any  thing 
by  his  laboured  production,  must  be  understood  as  holding  the 
opposite  sentiment  The  only  reason  he  can  assign  for  ascrib- 
ing the  sentiments  of  this  third  class  to  me  is,  that  they  are  to 
be  found  as  a  quotation  in  my  book.  On  this  ground  they  are 
attributable  to  i\lr.  E.  also  ;  and  not  to  him  only,  but  in  a  quali- 
fied sense,  to  all  who  applaud  and  receive  his  book. 

But  why  did  Mr.  E.  select  the  sentiments  of  this  class  of  epis- 
copalians and  give   them  as  mine,  in  preference  to  the  senti- 
ments of  the   other  two  classes?     It  was  not  because   they 
were  the  sentiments  of  the   majority;  for  he  tells   us   *'  tha* 
nineteen  twentieths^  of  all  the  episcopalians  in  Great  Britain  and 
in   the  United    States,   hold   no   such   opinions."     Perhaps  he 
thought,  if  he  could  succeed  in  directing  the  attention  of  hi  = 
readers  to  opinions  so  "  extravagant"  and  offensive,   he  wouh 
be  able  to  keep  the  imparity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  out  o 
sight.     Excellent  device!!     To  have  given  the   sentiments  o 
such  an  overwhelming  majority,  as  the  common  acceptation  o 
the  term  bishops,  would,  however,  have  been  more  fair.     Bu* 
alas!    Mr.  E.  too  well  knew,  that  neither  truth  nor  fair  dealing 
could  help  his  cause. 

In  sundry  places  in  his  work,  Mr.  E.  censures  me  severely 
for  not  giving  tlie  name  of  an  author,  from  whose  work  I  made 
one  of  the  foregoing  extracts;  and  asks,  "  was  it  not  because 
he  was  ashamed  of  it.^"  Mr.  E.  may  not  be  better  pleasecJ 
with  me  now,  for  giving  the  name,  than  he  was  because  I  for- 
merly omitted  it.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  do  not  know  that  I  have 
any  greater  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  giving  Dr.  John  Kevvlev 
as  my  author,  than  I  would  have,  were  I  to  have  occasion > 
to  give  the  name  of  Dr.  John  Emory. 

1 .  Dr.  John  Kevvley  was  born  1 .  Dr.  John  Emory  was  born 
in  Europe;  received  a  liberal  on  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Ma- 
and  classical  education,  being  ryland,  received  a  classical 
intended  for  a  Roman  Priest.        education,  being  intended  for 

the  law. 

2.  Dr.  John  Kewley  declin-  2.  Dr.  John  Emory  studied 
€d  entering  into  holy  orders,  law,  was  admitted  to  the  bar, 
studied  medicine,  and  became  and  became  a  practitioner  on 
a  practitioner  of  physic,  first     the  Eastern  Shore. 

in  the  West  Indies,  afterwards 
in  the  United  States. 

3.  Dr.  John  Kewley  joined  S.  Dr  John  Emory  joined 
the        Methodist       Episcopal     the        Methodist        episcopal 


24 


cfaQrcb,  relinquished  the  prac- 
Hcf.  of  medicine,  and  after 
some  lime,  was  received  as  a 
preacher,  into  the  travelling 
connexion. 

4.  Dr  John  Kewley  "deser- 
ted the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  and  joined  tlie  Protect- 
ant Episcopal  church 'jand  after 
pronouncing  upon  tiiat  church, 
the  most  tulsotne  and  high  ton- 
ed eulogies,  subsequently  a- 
bandoned  it  also,  and  went 
where  all  who  hold  such  prin- 
ciples as  he  had  avowed,  to  be 
GOnsistent  with  themselves 
ought  to  go — to  the  Papists." 
Def.  p.  33. 


5.  Dr.  John  Kewley  profes- 
sed to  be  converted  under  my 
ministry.  He  travelled  round 
the  circuit  with  me;  I  had, 
therefore,  a  good  opportunity 
of  conversing  with  him  daily, 
and  of  noticing  his  deep  piety 
and  devotedness  t©  God. 


church,  relinquished  the  prac- 
tice of  the  law,  and  was  re- 
ceived as  a  preacher  into  the 
travelling  connexion. 

4.  Dr.  John  Emory  was  I 
formerly   announced  as   a  lie-\ 

former,!  see  Dr.  Jcnnings'^s  third  | 
letter  to    Mr   Diu  auey    "  Mu-  \^ 
tual  Rights,"  vol.  1  )  wiiich  re-  ' 
presentation  Mr.  E.  never  con- 
tradicted.   In  conjunction  with  ■ 
Waugh,   Morgan  and  Griliith, 
he   published    a    pamphlet    a- 
gainst   the  tremendous   power 
of  the  bishops  *     But  since  he 
received  a  few  votes  to  be   a 
bishop,  he  has  "  deserted"  the 
reformers,  and  become  one  oi' 
their  most  bitter  opposers. 

5.  Dr.  John  Emory  was  sta- 
tioned in  Philadelphia,  when 
I  became  acquainted  with  him. 
Being  his  colleague  that  year, 
I  had  an  opportunity  of  con- 
versing with  him  daily,  and  of 
healing  the  sentiments  of  the 
people  of  his  charge  concern- 
ing hiin.  And  from  the  inti- 
mate knowledge  I  [lave  had  of 
the  two  men,  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  iid\ ,  that  as  a  scholar,  a 
Chrisiiun  and  a  man  of  princi- 
ple and  honor.  Dr.  John  Kea-- 
ley  is  greatly  to  be  preferred 
to  Dr.  JohnEmorv. 


•  "A  scrupulous  and  7)reci.se  adlierence  to  all  the  minutia:  ofthe  present 
inode  of  appointing'  piesi  iiiJ'  elders,  is  so  far  i\o<n  being-  essential  to  NK-tii- 
odisni  that  in  its  first  and  purest  days,  there  w  ere  no  presiding  elders,  and  to 
this  day,  there  are  none  ni  our  sister  connexion  in  I".urop<.-:  and  we  be- 
lieve it  is  a  fact,  tliat  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  when  appointed  by  Mr.  W  esley, 
a  general  sulierinttndeut,  or  a  generiil  presidiiiff  elder  (for  Ur  Wesley  ex 
pressly  maintained  that  bish  ps  and  elders  are  tni;  same  orderjvct'nsed  to  serve 
m  that  offi<.e  umd  ne  was  elected  by  the  tree  suffraijes  of  Isis  bretiiren  in 
conference."  See  the.  above  pamphlet,  p.  2.  "This  claim  ofj)ower  we 
did  then  oppose  ;  and  we  have  ever  since  opposed  it;  and  we  hope  we  shall 
never  cease  to  o|,pose  it'  p.  6.  (lUit  Mr.  Kmory  and  Mr  HVani^h  ara 
now  booii  .igen  s,  vvrh  fouifjiiaijle  hvinjrs  uiul  \ve  hear  of  no  faiUier 
ripposilion.)     "  \Vc  regard  it  as  ©alcnlated  to  be  acted  upon,  and  to  be  L-uiU 


.2.5 
Skction  II. — Senlimenf.s  of  Bishop  hFliilc. 

For  what  purpose,  are  the  sentiments  of  bishop  White  in- 
trodurccl?  Is  it  to  vindicate  t ^  e  validity  of  Methodi>t  episco- 
pacy? or,  to  demonstrate,  that  bishops,  in  the  iMetliodist  epis- 
copal church,  are  truly  and  really  an  order  of  ministers,  dis- 
tinct fioni  and  superior  to  presbyters?  That  could  not  have 
been  Mr  E's  object.  They  are  introduced,  osfei-'sibly,  to 
prove  what  I  never  denied,  and  what  1  thought,  no  man,  pos- 
sessed of  common  sense,  having  a  proper  regard  for  his  own 
character,  and  for  public  opinion  in  these  Ignited  States,  would 
deny;  namely,  that  every  church  has  a  right,  not  only  to  choose 
her  own  particular  form  of  government,  at  the  commencement 
of  her  existence;  but  to  alter,  change  or  amend  it,  alter  it  has 
been  adopted.  Are  these  Mr  E's  sentiments?  If  they  are, 
why  did  he  express  himself  in  opposition  to  tliem,  in  tiie 
answer  to  the  memorial  from  "reformers"  to  the  late  gen- 
eral conference?  If  they  are  not,  v\hy  attempt  to  pass 
oft  the  sentiments  of  bishop  White,  who,  according  to  the  34th 
Article  of  the  church  of  England,  allows  the  right  of  every 
church  to  alter  and  change  things  "  ordained  only  by  man's  au- 
thority," as  favouritig  Methodist  episcopacy?  This  is  another 
instance  of  Mr  E"s  disingenuousness;  and  it  was  done  for  no 
otiicr  reason  it  uould  seem,  but  to  blind  the  reader,  by  throw- 
ing a  little  more  dust  in  his  eyes;  or  to  pave  the  way  for  epis- 
copal succession.  To  shew  that  there  is  no  relevancy  in  tlie 
sentiments  of  bishop  White,  to  the  subject  under  discussion,  it 
will  be  proper  to  state  the  circumstances  which  elicited  these 
sentiments  trom  the  rev.  autlior. 

"After  the  connexion,  which  had  been  formed  between  the 
spiritual  authoiity  in  England,  and  tite  ep;sco[)al  churches  in 
America,  had  been  dissolved  by  the  revoluiion,"  Dr.  White, 
now  bishop  White,  published  a  pamphlet  entitled  "the  case 
of  the  Episcopal  ci)urches  in  the  United  Slates  considered."  In 
this  pamphlet  he  remarks,  "  all  former  jurisdiction  over  the 
churches  being  withdrawn,  and  the  chain  which  held  them  to- 
gether being  broken,  it  would  seem,  that  their  iuturc  continu- 
ance can  be  provided  for,  only  by  voluntary  associations  for 
union  and  good  government;"  p.  7.  It  being  "generaiiy  under- 
stood that  the  st(ccession,  supposed  necessary,  to  constitute  the 
episcopal  character  of  these  churches  cannot  be  obtained  at  the 
present,  the  conduct  meant  to  be  recomended,  is  to  include  in 
the  proposed  frame  of  government,  a  general  approbation  of 

upon  for  generations  yet  unborn,"  p  7.  "  Remember  the  tenacious  grasp 
with  wliicli  power  is  held,  when  once  acquired  lis  march  is  onward,  any 
irs  tremendous  tendency  is  to  accumulate."  p.  12. 

"  Manners  with  fc-rtunes;  humou;s  turn  with  climeS; 
'.rejiets  witli  hooks,  and  principles  with  times." 


20 

episcopacy  and  a  declaration  of  an  intention  to  procure   tlie  suc- 
cession as  soon  as  conveniently  may  be;  but  in  the  m.'.an  time,  t» 
carry  the  plan   into  effect,  without  waiting  for  the  succession." 
P*  *^:    .^'"''^'^  this  extract,  and  from  other  parts  in  the  pamphlet 
ofa  similar  import,  it  may  be  fairly  inferred,  that  the  sentiments 
of  bishop  White  are  I,  "  The  succession  is  supposed  necessary 
lo  constitute  the  episcopal   character  of  the  episcopal  church.'" 
2,  "  That    the   succession   cannot   at  present,   be  obtained."  3, 
"  That  efforts  should  be  made  to  procure  the  succession  as  soon 
as  possible."     4,  That  in  the  mean  time  "  voluntary  associations 
for  union  and  good  governmeni''  be  formed.  And  5,  that  "  any 
supposed  imperfections  of  the  intermediate  ordinations  might, 
if  it  were  judged  proper,  be  supplied,  without   acknovvledginj? 
their  nullity,  by  a  conditioned  ordination  resembling  that  of  con- 
ditional baptism  in  the  liturgy." 

And  are  these  the  sentiments,  on  which   so  much  reliance  is 
placed  to  help  on  the  cause  of  Methodist  episcopacy.?  Are  these 
the  sentiments  with  which  Mr.  E.  is  so  much  delighted,  that  he 
declares,  he  "  finds  no  small  consolation  from  being  in  company 
so  respectable".?     They  are  consistent  enough,  to  be  sure,  com- 
ing from  ihe  pen  of  an  Episcopalian,  who  maintains  the  imparity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  and  who  holds  the  doctrine  of  "  suc- 
cession;'' but  for  a  Methodist  preacher,  who  would  be  under- 
stood to  reject  these  sentiments,  to  cry  out,  "  so  say  toe,"  is  strange, 
passing  strange,  indeed.     However,  as   the    former  ground   on 
which  Methodist  episcopacy  was  made  to  rest,  has  been  remov- 
ed, and   as  Mr.   E.  has  said   the  "  march  of  power  is  onward" 
he  may  have  intended,    as  was  intimated  above,   that  the  intro- 
duction   of  these    "sentiments''  should    serve   as  an   entering 
wedge  for  the  "  succession"  in  the  Metliodist  episcopal  church; 
and  that  the  "  episcopal  succession"  being  obtained,  "  any  sup- 
posed imperfections  of  the  intermediate  ordinations,  might,  if  it 
were  judged  proper,  be  supplied  without  acknowledging  their 
nullity  by  a  conditional  ordination." 

That  Mr.  E.  may  have  had  some  squinting  towards  the  "  suc- 
cession,'' as  being  introduced,  at  some  future  day,  to  subserve 
the  interests  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  is  probable:  else  why 
condemn  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  for  the  failure  of  the 
proposals,  which  had  been  made  by  Dr.  Coke  to  bishop  Whitef 
Hear  what  he  says.  "If  tlii-^  statement  be  correct,  then  the  res- 
fonsibiliiy  for  the  rendering  of  our  deviation  from  that  line  of  epis- 
copacy, permanent,  rests  on  them.''''  Dei.  p.  22.  Had  there 
been  no  disposition,  no  desire,  no  "  proposal''  to  go  back  to 
"  that  line  of  episcopacy'*''  in  which  "  the  succession  is  supposed 
necessary  to  constitute  the  episcopal  character,"  why  blame  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church  for  the  failure  of  the  proposed 
union  .?  But  ^!r.  E.  goes  on.  "  The  proposed  union,  by  which 
our  temporary  deviation  might  have  been  cured,  according  to  Dr. 


"VVIiite's  plan  of  conditional  ordinations^  on  the  principle  ofcoii- 
ditional  baptisms,  was  rejected  by  them.''''  So  then,  "  the  tempo- 
rary deviation  might  have  been  cured,"  ''*?.  E.  being  judge,  had 
it  not  been  that  the  proposals  made  by  doctor  Coke  to  bishop 
White  failed.  What  now  is  to  be  done?  How  shall  this  evil  be 
•remedied  ?  Very  easily,  if  Mr.  EV  principles  be  adopted  and 
his  reasoning  be  acted  on.  He  thinks  it  is  not  "  Unlawful  to  re- 
vive," what  formerly,  in  the  apostles' days,  had  an  existence:  that 
"  admitting  the  lawfulness  of  our  practice  in  this  respect,**  (  lo 
revive  what  was  formerly  in  existence)  "  the  expediency  and 
utility  of  it  must  be  judged  by  those,  whose  concern  it  is,"  that 
is,  the  Methodist  episcopal  church.  That  "  to  make  a  thing  un- 
laxcful  which  was  before  lawful^  there  ought  to  be  some  express 
prohibition  of  it;  which  in  this  case  we  suppose,  with  Stilling- 
fleet,  men  will  not  easily  produce  from  the  word  of  Qod  As 
such  an  itinerant  and  extensive  oversight,  a*,  was  practiced  by 
the  apostles,  and  by  Timothy  and  Titus,  fell  greatly  into  dis- 
use, very  shortly  after  their  decease,  it  cannot  be  conclusively 
inferred,  that  it  is  unlawful  to  revive  a  similar  superintendency 
in  churches  that  may  desire  it."  Def   p.  26. 

That  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  may  "revive  such  a 
Superintendency  as  was  practised  by  the  apostles  and  by  Timo- 
thy and  Titus,"  Mr.  E.  strives  to  get  rid  of  one  very  formida- 
ble obstacle,  which,  he  clearly  saw,  stood  directly  in  his  way  : 
that  is,  the  character  of  those  church  officers  who  were  emplo}'- 
ed  by  Christ,  in  planting  churches  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. — 
Mr.  Wesley  says  "  The  extraordinary  teachers,  whom  Christ 
employed  to  lay  the  foundation  of  his  kingdom,  were  the  twelve 
apostles,  and  the  seventy  disciples.  To  these  the  evangelists 
are  to  be  added,  by  which  title  those  were  distinguished,  whom 
the  apostles  sent  to  instruct  the  nations."  Wesley's  Church 
History,  vol.  I  p.  55.  Now  let  ihe  reader  attend  to  the  meth- 
od which  Mr  E.  takes  to  dispose  of  the  difficulty  growing  out 
of  the  "  extraordinary''''  character  of  those  early  "  church  offi- 
cers.'' who  "  practised  such  a  superintendency"  as  he  wishes  to 
"revive."  He  says  l.  "  That,  in  the  apostles'  times  there  were 
individuals  travelling  extensively  as  superintendents,  bishops, 
inspectors,  or  overseers,  in  a  larger  sphere,  and  setting  in  order 
the  things  that  were  wanting  in  multitudes  of  churches,  is  unde- 
niable." 2.  "  Whether  such  church  officers  were  extraordinary, 
or  not,  as  Stillingfleet  says,  we  now  dispute  «oJ."  3.  "  It  is  not 
unlawful  to  revive  a  similar  superintendency  in  churches  which 
siay  desire  it."  4.  "  To  make  a  thing  unlawful  which  was  be- 
fore lauful,  there  ought  to  be  some  express  prohibition*  of  it. 

•Stillingfleet  saiJ,  "  the  constitution  of  our  church  stands  upon  this  sin- 
gla  point,  all  things  are  lawful  which  are  not  forbidden."  Allow  this  "single 
pnint,''  and  "  brother  Peter  '  will  ask  no  more.     It  vvill  also  ierve  the  pur- 


•2.6 

As  there  were  "apostles  and  evangelists  employed  by  Christ  in 
planting  churches,"  and  the  "superintendency"  of  these  "  church 
officers  fell  greatly  into  disuse  ;"  and  as  there  is  no  "  express 
prohibition,'"  making  that  "  unhnvful  uhich  was  before  Imcfui;' 
Jt  may  be  inferred,  that  it  is  Mr.  E's  wish  '^  to  revive  such  a 
superintendency  as  was  practised  by  the  apostles,  and  by  Tim- 
o!hy  and  Titus."  This  being  the  case,  when  Mr.  E.  is  bishop, 
there  will  be  another  aposlle  John,  and  his  presiding  elders  will 
be  ranked  with  the  cvangelisls  Timothy  and  Titus.  These 
apostJe.s,  though  not  of  the  old  school,  will  be  divindxj  inspired, 
as  the  itinerant  preachers  are  now  the  "  divinely  cmthorized''^  ex- 
})ounders  of  God's  word.  They  will  have,  also,  the  "gift  of 
tongues,"  and  be  endued  with  power  to  work  miracles.  The 
"  apostle  John"  will  then  be  able  to  say  with  propriety,  when 
l)e  is  about  to  ordain  a  man,  "  receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and 
all  this  must  be  admitted,  if  it  should  be  "-judged  expedient  to 
revive  it,"  by  the  Metiiodist  episcopal  church,  "  whose  concern 
it  is  ;''  because  there  is  "  no  express  prohibition''''  to  the  coutra- 
yy.  Although  these  things  may  not  be  considered  very  modest, 
yet  if  Mr  E.  can  persuade  the  people  not  to  "dispute"  about 
them,  or  if  he  can  induce  the  people  to  allow  these  pretensions, 
it  may  not  be  long  before  they  will  be  asserted  by  the  "divine- 
ly authorized"  expounders  of  God's  word,  and  the  "  divinely 
authorized"  administrators  "  of  moral  disciplme." 


Section  lil. — JMr.  Weskxfs  opinion. 

"As  to  my  own  judgment,  says  Mr.  Wesley,  I  still  believe 
the  episcopal  form  of  cliurch  government  to  be  scriptural  and 
apostolical,  1  mean,  well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings 
of  the  apostles.  But  that  it  is  prescribed  in  scripture,  I  do  not 
believe."  Def.  p.  17.  As  Mr.  \V'e.sley's  opinion  is  introduced 
by  Mr.  E.  into  his  book,  which  was  written  expressly  to  vindi- 
cate "  our  Fathers,"  in  lelation  to  their  having  organized  the 
5:e!hodist  episcopal  church,  and  adopted  the  episcopal  form  of 
church  government,  it  is  submitted  to  the  candid,  whether  com- 
njon  readers  will  not' suppose,  that  ^ir.  Wesley  expressed  this 


pose  oi'tlie  gamester,  as  well  as  the  pope.  There  is  no  "express  prohibi- 
llou'  siivs  tlie  j.'aii.blcr  agiiinst  billuiuia,  baclcg^amnion.  cards,  dice  or  any  of 
lliese  g-AHii'S  of  play.  JSu  "  cxjirtss  priihibition'"  a}^aln^t  da:  ces,  theatres, 
races,  or  piijjjjei  siiows,  S-c  One  of  Stillingflret's  opponents  said,  "the 
point  on  whicii  his  church  stood  woulii  ntake  a  pure  i'lcasec  of  religion,  it. 
would  justify  the  additioji  of  oil,  cieam,  spittl.,  and  salt  in  baptism  and  it 
would  as  miicli  au'borize  a  minister  lo  preach  the  gt  spel^With  a  helmet  on 
his  heau,  and  a  sword  and  buckler  >n  his  hand  as  signs  of  cur  spiriuial  war- 
fltre  as  the  cyt'oasM  baptism  ii  .snot  eiioui^h  in  rehgLon  that  tilings  are 
•AGi  fbrbidtltii,4i^y  must  be  coinmundeil." 


Op'.niuu  ^vilh  rclV^renee  to  tliis  very  snV.jeet.  But,  tbe  followiog 
ciicumstniices  which  i^ave  rise  to  liie  expression  of  lliis  opiiiii)!! 
veil!  show,  that  an  occasion,  very  (iitlereut  from  that  with  which 
Mr.  E.  has  coiiiiccted  it,  produced  it. 

Mr  Wesley  puhlisiied  a  sermon  entitled  a  "Catholic  Spirit,'' 
hi  wl'ich  arc  to  be  found  the  followiDa;  expressions.  "1  dare, 
not  [)iesume  to  impose  my  mode  of  worship  on  any  other.  I 
ask  not,  iheiefore,  of  him  with  whom  I  would  uniie  in  love,  arc 
you  of  my  church  f  of  my  congregation  ?  Do  you  receive  the* 
same  form  of  church  g-overnrpent,  and  allow  the  same  church 
officers  with  me  .''  Let  all  these  things  stand  by  &c."  Mr.  VVes- 
ley  infoims  us,  that  he  "  sent  tiiis  sei-moa  to  Rev.  Mr.  Clarke 
v/ith  no  particular  vieu^  :  but  as  a  testimony  of  love  to  a  fellow 
labourer."  Wesley's  Works,  Am.  Ed.  vol.  x  p.  :231.  Mr. 
Clarke,  with  ''openness  and  candor,"  wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in 
which  letter  he  gave  "a  very  fair  explication"  of  the  text,  to 
which,  Mr.  Wesley  says,  he  had  "no  objection  at  all.''  At\er 
this,  Mr.  Wesley  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clarke,  from  which, 
Mr.  E.  extracted  the  above  "  opinion."  It  ought  to  be  farther 
slated,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr.  Clarke,  which  contains 
the  above  "opinion,"  is  dated  "  Castlebar,  July  3,  1756," 
twenty  eight  years  before  the  organization  of  the  Methodi:st  epis- 
copal church,  upon  which  subject  it  is  intended  to  have  a 
bearing.     This  is  another  instance  of  Mr.  E's  disingenuousness. 

It  will  not  escape  the  attention,  of  the  intelligcni  reader,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  has  given  no  defmition  of  an  "episcopal  form  of 
church  government ;"  nor  desjrilied  tho.se  "  church  officers," 
wliom  he  received.  He  merely  refers  to  some  opinion  which 
he  had  expressed  on  a  former  occasion.  Indeed  the  circum- 
stances, under  Avhich  he  wrote,  did  not  require  him  to  be  more 
explicit,  inasmuch  as  he  introduced  those  subjects  incidentally. 
Mad  he  been  writing  a  "Defence"  of  episcopacy,  or  of  an  epis- 
copal form  of  church  goverimient,  "  this  great  master  of  logic" 
would  have  settled  the  meaning  of  these  phrases.  He  certain- 
ly would  have  told  us,  what  he  meant  by  "  episcopacy" — what 
by  "  bishop,s" — v/hat  by  an  "episcopal  form  of  church  govern- 
ment." Has  Mr.  E.  done  this  .?  He  !ias  not.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  inferred,  that  ke  is  not  a  "great  master  Oi  logic  ;"  or 
that  he  has  studiously  avoided  giving  a  defiaiiion  of  any  of  the 
subjects  upon  which  he  writes  ;  knowing,  that  defiinlion  would 
be  destruction  to  ins  cause.  The  reader  will  please  keep  in 
mind,  that  in  all  his  book,  Mr.  E.  has  not  explicitly  stated  what 
he  means  by  "a  Methodist  bishop?''  T  at  he  leaves  it  undeter- 
mined, whether  he  meant  to  represent  this  church  officer  as  a 
'•  third  order,"  distinct  from  a  presbyter;  or  wiiether  he  intended 
that  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  should  be  considered  as  of  the 
same  order.  When  the  reader  meets  the  term  "  bishop," 
"  episcopacy,"  or  "an  episcopal  form  of  church  govet-nmcnt," 


20 

m  tlie  "  Det'eaee  of  our  Fathers,"  he  will  bear  thiscircumstavice 
in  mind,  and  ask  himself,  does  Mr.  E.  moan  that  a  bishop  in  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church  is  a  third  order  o[  m'xnisiers  distinct 
from  a  [)re8byter  ?  I  do  not  add  by  "  divine  appointment,"  "  di- 
vine right"  or  "apostolic  succession,"  as  he  does  ;  but  simply, 
whether  "our"  bishops  are  a  distinct  order  from  and  superior 
to  presbyters  ?  This  is  the  point ;  and  I  shall  insist,  that  Mr.  E. 
ought  to  have  confined  himself  to  it. 

In  the  foregoing  extract,  Mr.  Wesley's  judgment  is  given, 
with  reference  to  some  opinion  which  he  had  previously  ex- 
pressed. When  did  he  express  that  opinion,  and  where  is  it 
to  be  found  ?  Turning  to  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  I 
find  them  dated  "  Brrstol  Hot  Wells,  January  4th,  1754."  Be- 
tween the  date  of  these  Notes  and  the  date  of  the  abovel  etter 
to  Mr.  Clarke,  there  are  just  eighteen  months.  If  we  consult 
the  Notes,  they  will  enable  us  to  comprehend,  precisely,  what 
Mr.  Wesley  meant,  when  he  said,  "  I  believe  the  episcopal 
form  of  government  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolical."  We  shall 
then  understand  to  what  order  those  "church  officers"  belong- 
ed, whom  he  received  ;  and  we  shall  perceive  at  the  first  glance 
the  hrelevancy  of  this  quotation,  and  its  inapphcabiliiy  to 
Methodist  episcopacy.  Mr.  Wesley  expresses  himself  in  the 
following  manner  in  his  Notes, 

"  The  word  bishops  here  includes  all  the  presbyters  at  Phil- 
lippi,  as  well  as  the  ruling  presbyters  :  the  name  bishop  and  pes- 
byter  or  elder  being  promiscuously  used  in  the  first  ages."  Phil. 
1  ch.  i  ver. 

"  Ji  bishop,  or  pastor  of  a  congregation."  I  Tim    iii  ch.  2  v. 

"  Likewise  the  deacons  must  be  serious.  But  where  are  the 
presbyters  .''  Were  this  order  essentially  distinct  from  that  of 
bishops  could  the  apostle  have  past  it  over  in  silence  .''"  I  Tim. 
iii  ch.  8  v. 

"  1  read  over  Lord  King's  account  of  the  primitive  church. 
In  spite  of  the  vehemewt  prejudices  of  my  education,  I  was 
ready  to  believe  that  this  is  a  fair  and  impartial  draught.  But  if 
so,  it  would  follow,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  essentially  of 
one  order  ;  and  that  every  Christian  congregation  was  a  church 
independent  on  all  others."    Wesley's  Journal,  January20,  1 746. 

"  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order  and  consequent- 
ly have  the  same  right  to  ordain."  See  his  letter  of  September 
10,  1784. 

"  1  firmly  believe  I  am  a  scriptural  episcopos  as  much  as  any 
man  in  England,  or  in  Europe  ;  for  the  uninterrupted  succession 
I  know  to  be  a  fable,  which  no  man  ever  did,  or  can  prove." 
Wesley's  Works,  Am  Ed.  vol.  x.  p.  94.  "  When  I  said  I  con- 
sider myself  a  scriptural  bishop,  as  much  as  any  man  in  England 
or  in  Europe,  1  spoke  on  Lord  King's  supposition  that  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  the  same  order." 


5' 


31 

No  writer  can  express  the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters 
more  clearly  and  unequivocally  than  Mr.  Wesley  did  in  the  above 
extracts.  No  one  was  farther  from  advocating  a  third  order  of 
ministers,  no  matter  by  what  name  it  is  called,. whether  bishop 
or  superintendent,  than  he  was.  And  yet  i\3r.  E.  offers  Mr. 
Wesley's  opinion  to  support  Methodist  episcopacy,  and  her 
episcopal  form  of  church  government,  although  it  is  as  clear  as 
a  sun  beam,  that  '--r.  Wesley  believed  "bishops  and  presbyters 
are  the  same  order ;''  and  that  the  "  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment which  he  believed  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolical,  that  is, 
well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apostles,'' 
was  a  government  by  presbyters,  and  an  ordination  by  presby- 
tere. 

— ^®»— 

Section  IV. — Ordinalion. 

Mr.  E.  intimates  pretty  strongly,  that  I  am  a  down  right 
simpleton,  for  having  brought  a  "  silly  witness"  into  court,  and 
having  put  such  answers  into  his  mouth  as  would  suit  my  pur- 
pose." Def.  p.  37.  Had  I  done  this,  I  must  have  been  a  fool 
indeed  ;  to  rest  my  cause  upon  the  testimony  of  such  a  "  wit- 
ness," when  I  knew,  at  the  time  1  was  framing  those  answers, 
that  this  "  silly"  creature  would  be  liable  to  be  cro.ss  examined 
by  such  a  "  profoundly  learned"  lawyer  and  doctor  of  divinity 
as  Mr.  E.  "  Silly,"  however,  as  this  "  witness"  is,  Mr.  E. 
with  all  his  pretensions  to  superior  wisdom  and  learning,  has 
j)ast  over  these  very  questions  and  answers  without  a  remark, 
thereby  tacitly  acknowledging,  that  they  are  too  knotty  for  his 
mighty  powers,  or  too  self-evident  to  be  confuted.  To  keep 
clear  of  such  an  imputation  hereafter,  Mr.  E.  shall  be  permitted 
to  choose  the  witnesses,  and  put  such  answers  into  their  mouths 
as  he  thinks  will  suit  his  purpose.  The  subject  on  which  they 
shall  be  examined,  stands  as  the  title  of  this  section,  and  all  the 
answers,  one  only  excepted,  are  taken  from  his  own  book,  and 
from  the  book  of  discipline.  Now,  let  Mr.  E.  through  his  wit- 
nesses answer  for  himself. 

Q.  What  is  ordination  .? 

A.  "  Ordination  is  the  solemn  setting  apart  of  a  person  to  some 
public  church  office."     Def.  p.  19. 

Q.  Whence  did  Christians  derive  the  "custom  of  ordina- 
tion" ? 

A.  "  Their  custom  of  ordination  was  evidently  taken  up,  by 
the  Christians  from  a  correspondency  to  the  synagogue."  p.  18. 

Q.  In  what  manner,  did  the  Jews,  "  under  the  synagogue," 
perform  this  ceremony.-* 

A.  "  That  under  the  synagogue  was  done  by  laying  on  of 
hands."  ib. 


Q  What  use  was  lliere  for  performing  this  ceremony  by  the 
itnposition  of  hands? 

A.  "A  tvi'O  fold  use  I  find  of  this  symbolical  rite,  beside  the 
solemn  designation  of  the  person,  on  whom  the  hand'*  are  laid. 
The  first  is  to  denote  the  delivery  of  llie  person  or  thing,  thus  laid 
hands  upon,  for  the  right  use  and  peculiar  service  of  God.  The 
second  end  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  was  the  solemn  invocation 
of  the  Divine  presence  and  assistance,  to  be  upon  and  with  the 
person,  upon  whom  the  hands  '.vere  laid.'"  ib 

Q.  Did  ''  (he  bare  hnposhion  of  hayids  confer  any  potcer  upon 
the  person"  upon  whom  iliey  weie  laid.^ 

A  No:  "but  with  that  ceremony,  they  joined  those  vvordg 
whereby  they  did  confer  that  authority  upon  them."  ib. 

Q.  If  imposition  ol  hands  conferred  no  authority,  in  what  light 
was  it  considered  ? 

A.  ''  What  is  imposition  of  hands  but  prayer  over  a  man."  ib. 

Q.  If  no  authority  was  conferred  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
why  was  this  rite  practised  ? 

A.  "  The  practice  our  Saviour  used  in  blessing  children,  heal- 
ing the  sick,  and  the  apostles  in  conferring  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  and  from  thence  it  was  conveyed  into  tlie  practice  ol  the 
primitive  church,  who  used  it  in  any  more  solemn  invocation  of 
the  name  of  God  in  behalf  of  any  particular  persons."     ib. 

Q.  Had  the  apostles  any  express  command  for  laying  their 
hands  upon  persons  .'' 

A.  "  We  have  no  ground  to  think  that  the  apostles  bad  any 
peculiar  command  for  laying  on  their  hands  upon  persons  in 
prayer  over  them,  or  ordination  of  them."  p.  19. 

Q.  Why  then  did  they  do  it  ? 

A.  ''  The  setting  apart  some  persons  for  tbe  peculiar  work 
cf  attendance  upon  the  necessities  of  the  churches  by  them 
planted,  being  enjoined,  they  took  up  and  made  use  of  a  laudable 
custom,  then  in  use  upon  such  occasions."     ib. 

Will  Mr.  E.  pronounce  these  witnesses  "  silly"  >  Will  he 
object  to  the  answers  which  they,  together  with  himself,  have 
i;iven  ^  I  presume  not.  Then,  let  the  testimony  otiered,  by 
iiimself,  be  received  and  what  follows  ?  That  the  imposition  of 
/lanrfs  does  not  constii lite  ordination  ;  does  not  impart  any  au- 
thority, does  not  create  a  new  order;  does  not,  in  one  word, 
make  a  bishop.  These  concessions  and  statements  ought  to  be 
distinctly  noticed,  for  it  undeniably  follows  from  the  foregoing 
testimony,  tiiat  Dr.  Coke  was  not  ordained  a  bishop  by  ui\ 
Wesley,  nor  did  the  bare  imposition  of  his  hands  confer  any 
authority. 

Q.  What  was  Dr.  Coke's  opinion,  respecting  the  imposition 
of  hands.'' 

A.  "  I  do  not  think  the  imposition  of  hands,  on  the  one  hand, 
as  essentially  necessarn  for  any  office  in  the  church;  nor  do  Ij 


u 

Oil  tlie  other  hand,  think  that  the  repetition  of  the  imposition 
of  hands  for  the  same  office,  when  important  circumstances  re- 
quire it,  is  at  all  improper."  Def.  p.  90. 

Q.  As  "  the  imposition  of  hands  is  not  necessary  for  any  of- 
fice;" and  as  it  imparts  no  authority,  whence  is  "  the  superiority 
•four  bishops"  derived? 

A.  "  The  late  Rev.  John  Dickins  says,  in  relation  to  the  su- 
periority of  our  bishops,  as  derived,  not  from  their  separate 
ordination,  but  from  the  suffraa;es  of  the  body  of  ministers. 
Pray  when  was  it  otherwise?"  Def  p.  65.  Again:  *' now  who 
ever  said  the  superiority  of  the  bishops  was  by  virtue  of  a  aep- 
arate  ordination}"'' ib.  And  again:  "  we  all  know  Mr.  Asbury 
derived  his  official  power  from  the  conference."  ib.  And  in 
another  place,  "  Mr.  Asbury  was  thus  chosen  by  the  conference 
both  bejore  and  after  he  was  ordained  a  bishop."* 

From  the  testimony  of  Rev.  John  Dickins,  it  is  plain,  that 
^^  separate  ordination^''  does  not  constitute  a  bishop.  For  the 
superiority  of  "  our  bishops,"  is  derived,  not  from  ordination, 
but  *rom  the  suffrages  of  the  body  of  ministers.  It  will  follow, 
therefore,  that  Dr.  Coke  was  no  bishop;  for  he  was  not  elected 
by  the  body  of  the  ministers  to  that  office.  If  he  was  one  at 
all,  he  was  one  before  he  crossed  the  Atlantic.  Mr.  E  goe» 
on:  "  The  pamphlet  containing  the  above  sentiments,  was  pub- 
lished by  the  unanimous  request  of  the  conference  held  at 
Philadelphia,  September  5,  1792;  and  may  be,  therefore,  con- 
sidered, as  expressing  the  views,  both  of  that  conference  and 
of  bishop  Asbury,  in  relation  to  the  true  and  original  character 
of  Methodist  episcopacy."  Def  p.  66. 

As  the  Rev.  John  Dickins's  sentiments  are  considered  "  the 
sentiments  of  the  Philadelphia  conference,  and  of  bishop  Asbu- 
ry in  1792,"  and  as  these  sentiments  are  said  to  afford  a  very 
correct  view  of  "the  true  and  original  character  of  Methodist 
episcopacy." 

Q.    Which  of  these  methods,  "separate  ordination,"  or  "  the 
suffrages  of  the  body  of  ministers"  is  now  used  in  constitutinjj  a 
Methodist  bishop  ? 
A.  Neither,  singly. 

Q.  How  is  a  bishop  constituted  now  } 
A.  "  By  the  election  of  the  general  conference,  and  the  layinj 
on  of  the  hands  of  three  bishops,  or  at  least  of  one  bishop  and 
two  elders."     Book  of  Dis.  ch.  I.  sec.  4. 

Q.  "  If  by  death,  expulsion,  or  otherwise,  there  be  no  bishop 
remaining  in  our  church  what  shall  we  do  ?" 

*  The  superiority  of  Methodist  bishops  consisted  of  two  elections;  the  one  , 
hef'ire,  the  other  after  he    was  mane  a  bishop,     Solomon,    who  said  there   is 
no  new  thing'  under  the  sun.  did  not  live  long  enough  to  see  this  new  sort  •€ 
**  tuptriority"  of  a  Methodist  bishop« 
3 


34 

A.  "  The  general  conference  shall  elect  a  bishop  ;  and  the 
elders,  or  any  three  of  them,  who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  gen- 
eral conference  for  that  purpose,  shall  ordain  him  according  to 
our  form  of  ordination." 

Q.  "  What  is  our  form  of  ordination  ?'' 

A.  "  After  the  gospel  and  the  sermon  are  ended,  the  elected 
person  shall  be  presented  by  two  elders  unto  the  bishop,  saying. 
We  present  unto  you  this  holy  man  to  be  ordained  a  bishop." 
Aftf^r  being  interrogated  upon  several  points,  "the  bishops  and 
eldprs  present,  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  elected 
person,  kneeling  before  them  upon  his  knees,  the  bishop  saying, 

Hec^ive  the  Holv  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  bishop 
in  the  church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee,  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  ot«r  hands  in  the  name  of  the  F'ather,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Jlmen.  And  remember  that  thou  stir  up  the 
grace  of  God  which  is  given  thee,  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands  ; 
for  God  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,  and 
love,  and  soberness" 

This  quotation  is  of  too  important  a  character,  to  be  passed 
over  without  bemg  noticed  :  I  shall  therefore  make  two  remarks 
on  it.  1..  It  does  not  agree  with  Mr.  E's  testimony  above,  where 
it  is  asserted  that  "  imposition  of  hands  confers  no  authority,  im- 
parts no  power ;"  because  it  is  affirmed  here,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  conveyed,  by  the  imposilivn  of  hands  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  bishop  And  the  elected  person  is  exhorted  to  "  stir 
up  the  grace  of  God  which  is  given  him,- by  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  "  oJ'the  ordainers.  "  Silly''  as  my  witness  was,  he  did  not 
conlradict  himself;  for  it  is  a  property  of  tnith  to  be  consistent. 
2.  There  is  not  a  man  in  the  whole  connexion,  who  believes,  that 
it  is  in  the  power  of  the  bishops  to  impart  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
third  per.>*on  in  the  ever  blessed  Trinity,  to  the  elected  person, 
about  to  be  ordained.  Does  the  bishop  himself  believe,  that  it  is 
his  prerogative  to  do  so,  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands?  Do  the 
elders,  who  are  associated  with  him,  in  the  performance  of  this 
rite,  believe  that  they  can  do  it  .-*  Does  the  person,  who  re- 
mains upon  his  knees  believe,  tha;  he  receives  the  Holy  Ghost  by 
the  imj)Osition  of  their  hands  upon  his  head?  I  will  venture  to 
affirm,  without  fear  of  contradiction  ;  that  neither  the  bishop  who 
ordains,  the  elders  who  assist,  the  man  upon  his  knees,  nor 
the  members  who  are  eyewitnesses  of  the  ceremony,  believe  that 
it  is  in  the  power  of  a  poor,  sinful  worm  of  the  earth,  to  impart 
the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands.  Why  then,  are 
the  e  words  ever  used,  when  those  who  use  them,  do  not  believe 
the  r  plain  and  obvious  meaning?  Why  are  they  to  be  found  in 
the  book  of  discipline  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church?  These 
words,  with  others  of  a  similar  import,  may  have  been  originally 
inserted  in  the  orduiation  service  ad  captandum  vulgus,  and  to  fa- 
vour the  design  of  ambitious  men ;  but  in  the  mouths  of  Method- 


35 

ists,  who,  when  they  use  them,  do  not  believe  one'word  of  what 
they  say,  they  are  vt-ry  improper. 

Havinij^  presented  the  testimony  of  Mr  E.  and  his  witnesses,  on 
the  subject  of  ordination,  the  reader  is  now  prepared  to  estimate, 
as  he  on!^ht,  what  is  said  respecting  "both  the  good  sense  of 
those  wiio  framed  it"  (tiie  answer  to  ques  2.  ch.  I.  sec.  4.  in  the 
book  of  discipline)  ''-and  their  acquaintance  with  ancient  eccle- 
siastical usage  "  Respecting  the  good  sense  of  those  who  fram- 
ed that  ansvver,  I  shall  say  nothing.  But  it  Mr.  E.  says,  that  tiie 
manner  of  constituting  a  bishop,  in  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  agrees  with  the  form  of  constituting  a  bishop,  in  the 
primitive  church,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years-  after  Christ ; 
or  if  he  would  be  understood  to  say,  that  Methodist  bishops  are 
of  the  same  rank,  or  are  made  in  the  same  manner  that  bisliops 
were  then  made,  \  must  say  Mr.  E.  himself  knows  nothing  of  an- 
cient ecclesiastical  usage 

'1  hat  there  is  a  great  discrepancy  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  E's 
witnesses,  is  very  obvious.  At  one  time,  although  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  is  "not  necessary,"  yet  certain  words,  which  are 
used  at  the  time  of  their  imposition,  coivey '•  authority,'' and 
constitute  the  person  upon  whose  head  the  hands  are  laid,  a  bish- 
op. At  another  time,  we  are  told,  'Mhe  superiority  of  our  bishops 
is  not  derived  from  their  separate  ordinalion^  but  from  the  suf- 
fiages  of  the  body  of  ministers."  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  as- 
sertion, the  Rev.  Joshua  Soule,  who  was  elected  a  bishop  in  the 
geneial  conference  of  18^0,  "by  the  suffrages  of  the  body  of 
ministers,"  derived  no  "■  superiority  "  from  his  election  ;  nor 
would  he  be  allowed  to  exercise  the  pffice  of  a  bishop  without  the 
"  imposition  of  hands  :  "  theieby  making  the  imposition  ot  hands 
"  essentially  necessary,"  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Coke,  Rev.  John 
Dickins,  the  conference  held  at  Philadelphia  Sep.  5.  179i,  bishop 
Asbury,  and  I  may  add  Mr.  E  himself,  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. 

At  another  time,  Mr.  E.  differs  from  the  preceding  witnesses, 
and  from  himself:  for  he  affirms  that  *■'  Dr.  Coke's  ordinalian  (as 
a  bishop)  was  performed  as  ordinations  usually  are-^with  the 
usual  solemiiities  ;  by  tlie  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  with 
the  assistance  of  other  ordained  mi:iisters,  and  under  the  protec- 
tion of  Almighty  God."  Def  p.  ^4.  Now,  how  does  this  ac- 
count agree  with  the  testimony  in  the  former  part  of  this  section  ; 
wherein  it  s  affirmed  that  imposition  of  hands  imparts  no  auihori- 
ty .''  How  does  it  agree  with  the  sentiments  of  Rev.  John  tJickins  ; 
oi  the  Philadelphia  conference  held  Sep.  5.  ildZ;  and  of  Dish- 
op  Asbury,  all  of  whom  make  "the  suffrages  of  the  body  of  . 
ministers'*  the  source  of  the  superiority  ot  our  bishops.''  how 
does  it  agree  with  Mr.  E's  own  sentiments,  who  sa}  s,  res[)ecting' 
"the  sutiiage  of  the  body  of  ministers,''  that  it  constitutes  "  the 
tniQ  and  original  character  of  Methodist  episco^jacy  r"  How 


36 

^es  it  agree  with  ch.  1.  sec.  4  of  the  book  of  disscipline?  Kot 
at  all.  Nor  does  any  one  of  these  views,  nor  do  all  oi  them  put 
togeher  agree  with  the  "  ancient  ecclesiastical  usage  *■  in  cot.sti- 
tuting  a  bishop.  For,  in  every  instance,  where  a  bishop  was  con- 
stituted in  the  primitive  church,  let  the  meaning  of  the  term  bish- 
op, be  what  it  may,  he  was  always  elected  by  the  suffrage  of  the 
people^  as  well  as  by  the  "  body  of  ministers."  Yes,  i  say  the 
people  had  a  voice  in  the  election  of  their  bishop  ;  and  1  defy 
Mr.  E.  to  produce  a  single  writer,  on  church  history,  who  denies 
this  to  be  the  fact.  The  truth  is,  Methodist  episcopacy  has  no 
precedent  in  "ancient  ecclesiastical  usage."  It  is  a  perfect 
anomaly.  And  from  the  above  specimen  of  inconsistencies  and 
contradictions,  the  writers  in  "  defence"  of  Methodist  epssco- 
pacy  are  at  as  great  a  loss  to  settle  the  form  of  ordination  and 
define  the  term,  as  they  are,  to  tell  us  what  a  Methodist  bishop  is. 
Before  I  dismiss  the  subject  of  "■  ordination,"  i  must  make  a 
few  remarks  upon  a  sentence,  in  the  section  under  considera- 
tion, which,  I  think,  is  not  a  fair  representation  of  the  case  of 
which  it  treats.  It  is  this  :  "  Great  probability  there  is,  that 
where  churches  were  planted  by  presbyters,  (as  the  Methodist 
episcopal  church  was)  upon  the  increase  of  churches  and  pres- 
byters, they  did,  from  among  themselves  choose  on.e  to  be  as  a 
bishop  over  them.  For  we  no  where  read,  in  those  early  planta- 
tions of  churches,  that  where  there  were  presbyters  already^ 
they  sent  to  other  churches  to  desire  episcopal  ordination  for 
them,"     Def.  p.  19, 

This  purports  to  be  a  quotation  from  Stillingfieet,  but  where 
it  is  to  be  found  in  his  works,  I  am  not  told.  Nor,  while  I  am 
noticing  this  omission,  is  this  the  only  quotation  which  Mr.  E. 
gives,  without  making  the  proper  reference  to  the  page  &c.  This 
is  the  more  reprehensible  in  him,  because  he  is  so  lavish  of  his 
abuse  of  me,  tor  having  once  failed  to  give  the  name  of  an  author 
from  whom  I  made  an  extract.  But  allowing  the  fairness  of  the 
extract,  the  representation,  which  it  makes,  is  not  true.  I.  It 
asserts  that  "  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  was  planted  by 
presbyters,"  Not  so  ;  for  long  before  this  church  was  organized, 
the  societies  which  constituted  it,  were  "  planted,"  not  by  pres- 
byters, but  by  lay  preachers.  2.  It  intimates  ttiat  there  was  no 
bishop  until  after  the  church  had  been  organized,  and  that  then, 
*' upon  an  increase  of  churches  and  presbyters ^'^^  those  "presby- 
ters did,  from  among  themselves,  choose  one  to  be  a  bishop  over 
them."  This  is  not  correct ;  for  the  creation  of  presbyters, 
the  creation  of  bishops,  and  the  organization  of  the  church,  all 
took  place  at  the  same  conference.  3.  It  conveys  the  idea  ihat 
the  bishop  was  chosen  by  the  churches  and  presbyters  ;"  or  that 
the  "  churches^''  as  well  as  the  presbyters,  had  a  voice  in  electing- 
the  bishop.  Nor  was  this  the  case,  i'he  ••'  c/u«rc/ies,"  socie-.. 
ties,  congregations,  or  members  had  no  voice  in  the  organiza- 


37 

iion  of  the  cTiurch,  or  in  the  election  of  tVie  bishop.  4.  It  suju, 
posps  that  'Mhere  were  presbyters  ahead)"  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  church  ;  and  theiefore,  there  was  no  necessity  to  send 
to  other  churches  to  have  them  ordained.  Nor  does  this  stato? 
ment  accord  with  matter  of  fact.  For  the  societies  sent  to  Mr. 
.Wesley,  requesting  him  to  send  them  ordained  ministers.  5. 
And  after  all,  the  whole  pioceeding,  to  which  Stillingfleet  al» 
ludes,  is  represented  hy  him,  only  as  a  matter  of  "great  proha" 
bility  ;"  and  yet  Mr.  E.  transfers  it  to  the  account  of  Methodist 
episcopacy 

— ^O^— 

Section  V. —  Ordination  of  Dr.  Coke. 

\  said  in  a  former  part  of  this  work,  that  Mr.  E.  has  misrep.* 
resented  me,  by  making  me  say,  that  the  common  acceptation  ot 
the  term  bishop  is  '*■  an  order  of  ministers  distinct  from  presby» 
ters  by  divine  appointment,  and  is  thechief  mark  of  their  distinc- 
tion ;   and  in  whom,  as  successors,  of  the  apostles,  is  vested  the 
exclusive  right  of  granting  the  divine  commission  to  execute  the 
miiiisferial  office."     Def.  p.  20.    How  he  could  have  made  this 
assertion  is  the  more  surprising  ;  as  in  the  paragraph  immediate* 
ly  preceding  this  sentence,  there  are  several  quotations  from  my 
book,  in  which  I  distinctly  state  the  common  acceptation  of  the 
term  bishop.     "  It  Mr.   Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke  a  bishop  io 
the  common  acceptation  of  that  term,  then  he  created  a  church 
officer  greater  than  himself;  and  of  consequence,  he  brought  him* 
self  into  subjection  to  Dr  Coke,  by  making  the  doctor  his  supe* 
rior.     Again,  "  If  the  doctor  was  constituted  a  bishop"  (in  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  term  is  here  dropped,  *  says  Mr,. 
E.  "  he  was  raided  to  a  rank  above  a  presbyter,  and    invested 
with  superior  powers .     In  that  case,  he  that  was  sent,  was  great- 
er than  he  that  sent  him  ;  and  then  Mr.  Wesley,  who  was  only  a 
presbyter,  and  consequently  inferior  to  a  bishop,  assumed    the 
prerogative^to  send  his  si*pej-ior  to  do  a  vvoik  in  his  name,  which 
he  himself  could  not  go  and  do."     And  again,  "  If  the  doctor 
by  the  imposition  of  Mr.  Wesley's  hands  is  created  a  bishop, 
then  the  objection  of  the  bishop  of  Norwich  lies  in  full  force; 
if  a  presbyter  can  ordain  a  bishop,  then  the  greater  is  blessed  oi 
the  less." 

Now,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  is  there  any  thing  like 
divine  appointment  in  any  of  tliese  extracts  .''     1  merely  stated 

•What  if  it  is  ?  Will  any  scholar  say  it  was  necessary,  or  that  it  would 
be  elegant  to  insert  the  phrase  *'  common  acceptation"  ag^ain,  after  it  had  ' 
been  inserted  in  the  preceding  sentence,  which  related  to  the  same  subject  } 
He  will  not.  Mr  E's  censure  proves,  that  lie  is  ignorant  of  the  rules  of 
composition,  or  that  he  carps  unnecessarily,  with  a  design  to  mislead  hi^ 
readers . 


38 

the  common  acceptation  of  the  term  "bishop"  to  be  a  "  rank  above* 
piesb}feis," "superior to presbyleis,"  'greater thai)  presbyters" 
&;r.  and  this  distinction  wili  admit  the  addition  oi*-  kwnan  expedien-. 
cy'"  with  more  propriety,  than  it  will  "  divine  appointment."  For 
Mr.  E.  to  have  added  *"divine  appointmeni''  to  this  distinction, 
T^  hen  nothing  was  said  upon  which  this  addition  could  be  founded, 
is  utterly  unju-tiliable  ;  and  moreover,  it  wouid  lead  a  person, 
to  believe  that  Mr.  E.  did  not  much  regard  what  he  said,  so 
tl  at  he  could  only  make  his  cause  appear  good.  "  All  the  smart 
savings,''  therefore,  which  he  has  uttered  here  and  elseuh-re 
respecting  ^'divine  appointment ,"^  vanish  into  thin  air  ;  and, 
Ti'hen  he  writes  again,  he  must  consider  the  common  acccplalion 
of  the  term  bishop  to  be,  an  order  of  ministers  "distinct  from 
ami  superior  to  presbyters." 

,  On  page  23  of"  His.  and  Mys."  I  expressed  myself  thus  ; 
"As  Mr.  Wesley  and  Dr  Coke  were  of  tiie  same  order,  to  wit, 
the  order  of  presbyters,  the  doctor  had  as  good  a  clerical  right 
to  ordain  Mr.  Wesley  a  bishop,  as  Mr.  Wesley  had  to  ordain 
the  doctor.  This  was  the  case  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's 
views  of  ecclesiastical  usage,  and  this  is  the  opinion  of  the  Rev, 
Mr.  Mooi-e,  i-  r.  esley's  biographer."  Upon  which  Vr.  E. 
remarks,  '•  As  good  a  clerical  right  ;  Mr.  -Ni'Caine  seems  to 
have  felt,  here,  that  his  argument  w^as  lame."  Def  p.  2h 
Lame  !  No  indeed,  I  did  not  feel  it  was  "  lame  ;"  and  upon 
farther  and  closer  examination,  i  find  nothing  like  lameness  in 
it.  I  find  it  strengthened  and  supported' by  ^r.  Wesley's  and 
^"r.  Moore's  auliiority  ;  and  the  only  fault  Mr.  E.  can  find  with 
it,  is,  that  it  is  but  too  well  adapted  to  produce  conviction,  of 
the  invalidity  of  Dr.  Coke's  ordination,  as  a  bishop. 

But  let  us  examine  it  more  closely.  Whence  had  Mr.  Wesley" 
any  right  to  ordain.^  From  his  being  a  clergyman  of  the  church 
oi  England.  According  to  A^r.  Wesley's  own  account,  "  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  the  same  order^  and  consequently  have  the 
same  right  to  ordain.''  His  right  to  ordain,  grew  out  of  his  be- 
ing a  clergyman,  and  of  couise,  was  a  "  cier?'ca/ right.''  And  as 
Dr.  Coke  was  a  presbyter,  as  well  as  Mr.  Wesley,  the  doctor 
had  as  good  a  clerical  right  to  ordain  Mr.  Wesley  a  bishop,  as 
Mr.  Wesley  had  to  ordain  the  doctor  a  bishop.  It  was  not,  how- 
ever, upon  his  "  al)Stiact ''  clerical  right  to  oidain,  that  I  ground- 
ed Mr.  Wesley's  nght  to  appoint  Dr.  Coke  a  superintendent  over 
the  American  Viethodists,  but  upon  an  acn^nowiedgedjurisuic- 
tion,  then  existing,  in  respect  of  Mr.  W^esley.  This  is  the  very- 
point  upon  which  I  insist,  in  the  same  paragraph  from  which  Mr. 
E.  made  the  above  extract.  This  is  the  circumstance  which 
justifies  Mr.  Wesley,  and  explains  the  whole  of  his  proceedings. 
I  say,  "Mr.  Wesley  considered  himself,  under  God,  tlie  father 
of  all  the  Viethodists  in  Europe  and  America.  He  considered 
that  he  had  a  right  to  govern  those  societies,  which  had  been 


39 

raised  by  his  insiTumentality,  and  had  put  themselves  "  under 
his  care."  He  considered  it  to  be  his  prero,:i;ative,  to  transfer 
the  power  of  governing  the  societies,  which  he  could  not  per- 
sonally superintend,  to  Dr.  Coke  or  any  other  person,  he  might 
see  tit  to  appoint."  "  His  and  Mys."  p.  23.  From  these  state- 
•nients  I  argue,  if  Mr.  Wesley  had  been  in  America,  he  could 
have  personally  superintended  the  Methodist  societies,  without 
being  ordained  a  bishop  :  in  like  manner  Dr.  Coke  being  ap- 
pointed a  superintendent,  could  have  governed  those  societies 
without  being  created  a  hishop.  There  was  no  necessity  in  the  one 
case,  that  a  third  order  of  ministers  should  be  crrated,  any  mare 
than  in  the  other.  All  that  was  necessary  was,  to  transfer  the 
right  of  governing  to  tiie  delegated  person  ;  with  a  view  to  over- 
come the  ohjections  which  might,  possibly,  be  ottered,  if  any  at- 
tempt was  made  to  govern  them  without  Mr.  Wesley's  consent. 
This  transfer  of  power,  is  called  by  ,M  r.  Wesley,  an  investing  of 
the  doctor  with  "  fuller  powers  j"  and  Dr.  Coke,  who  is  there- 
by appointed  a  superintendent,  is  made  a  bishop,  hy  the  fiiends 
of  ecclesiastical  power,  contrary  to  Mr.  Wesley ""s  design. 

I  could  not  pioceed  with  my  observations  upon  the  supposed 
ordination  of  Dr  Coke,  without  having  tiret  replied  to  Mr.  E's 
misrepresentations  and  criticisms  1  snail  now  take  up  that  sub- 
ject, and  notice  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it;  and 
then  treat  of  the  different  parts  of  it,  in  their  consecutive  order. 

First.  That  wliich  gave  rise  to  it,  was  the  distressed  state  of 
the  societies.  The  Methodist  societies  in  America,  at  the  close 
of  the  revolutionary  war,  ''were  very  much  distre-^sed  for  want 
of  minisiers  to  adniinister  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord\s  supper,  accoiding  to  the  usage  of  the  churcli  of  England." 
There  were  preachers,  who  were  in  connexion  with  Mr.  VV^sley, 
but  they  were  not  ordained  or  authorised  to  administer  the  ordi- 
nances. "•  For  hundreds  of  miles  together^"  says  Mr.  Wesley, 
"there  was  none,  either  to  baptize  or  to  administer  the  Lord's 
supper."  This  is  a  brief  account  of  the  state  of  the  societies  ; 
and  upon  it  I  shall  make  two  remarks.  1.  i  hat  it  was  the  du»y 
of  those  societies,  in  their  then  distressed  state,  to  take  all  pro- 
per steps  to  obtain  the  administration  of  the  ordinances.  2, 
That  there  was  none,  to  whom  they  could  apply  for  a  supply, 
with  more  propriety,  than  they  could  to  Mr.  Wesley.  His  ac- 
knowledged piety  and  usefulness — his  age  and  experience — and 
above  all,  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  Methodists,  as  the 
"father  of  the  whole  family,"  made  it  reasonable,  that  they 
should  submit  their  case  to  him,  ask  his  advice,  and  seek  to  be 
supplied  through  his  agency.  There  was,  besides,  another  rea-, 
son,  why  he  should  be  made  acquainted  with  their  state.  "As 
early  as  1778,  a  considerable  number  of  the  preachers  earnestly 
importuned  Mr.  Asbury  to  take  proper  measures,  that  th<'  peo- 
ple might  enjoy  the  privileges  of  all  other  churches,  and  no  iouj^er 


he  deprived  of  the  Christian  sacraments.  Mr.  Asbury's  attach- 
ment to  the  church  of  England,  was  at  that  time  exceedingly 
strong:  he,  therefore,  refused  them  any  redress.  On  this,  the 
majority  of  the  preachers  withdrew  from  him,  and  consequently 
from  Mr.  Wesley,  and  chose,  out  of  themselves,  three  senior 
brethren,  who  ordained  others  by  the  imposition  of  their  hands. 
The  preachers,  thus  set  apart,  administered  the  sacraments  to 
those  they  judged  proper  to  receive  them,  in  every  place  where 
they  came.  floweveV,  Mr.  Asbury,  by  indeiangable  labour  and 
attention,  and  by  all  the  address  in  his  power,  brought  them  back 
one  after  another,  and  by  a  vote  of  the  conference,  the  ordination 
was  declared  invalid."    Coke  and  More's  life  of  Wesley,  p.  350-1 

Mr.  E.  has  paid  a  very  flattering  compliment  to  the  "good 
sense"  of  those  preachers,  who  "  tiamed  the  answer,  to  ques.  2. 
iec.  4.  ch,  I.  of  the  book  of  discipline."  Whether  any  of  those, 
who  framed  that  answer,  were  of  the  number  of  those  who  de- 
clared the  above  ordination  "  invalid,"  I  know  not.  If  they 
were,  notwithstanding  all  "  their  acquaintance  with  ancient  eccle- 
siastical usage,"  they  voted  that  this  -'ordination  was  invalid." 
Now,  either  their  "acquaintance  "  &c.  was  not  as  extensive  as 
Mr.  E.  would  represent  it ;  or  some  of  his  authorities  are  not 
entitled  to  all  the  credit,  he  would  claim  for  them.  For  he  tells 
us,  after  Stillingfleet,  that  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  about  the 
year  1547,*  a  very  grave  and  learned  assembly  of  select  divities, 
was  called  by  the  king's  special  order,  for  debating  the  settlement 
of  things  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  practice  of  the 
primiiive  church.  It  consisted  of  Cranmer,  arch-bishop  of  Cant- 
erbury, the  arch-bishop  of  York,  and  many  other  prelates  and 
divines  of  the  first  distinction.  To  the  questions  propounded  to 
the  assembly,  by  order  of  the  king,  those  eminent  divines  gave  in 
their  answers,  severally  on  paper.  The  following  are  some  of 
the  questions  and  answers. 

Q.  1 3.  "Whether,  (if  it  fortuned  a  prince  Chrislien  lerned,  to 
conquer  certin  domynyons  of  infidells,  having  none  but  the  tem- 
poral lerned  men  with  him,)  it  be  defended  by  God's  law,  that 
he  and  they  should  preche  and  teche  the  word  of  God  there  or 
no,  and  also  make  and  constitute  priests  or  no?" 

A.  "  It  is  not  against  God's  law,  but  contrary,  they  ought  in* 
deed  so  to  do,  and  there  be  historyes  that  witnesseth,  that  some 
Chnstien  princes  and  laymen  unconsecrate  have  done  the  same.*' 

Q.  1 4.  ^'  Whether  it  be  forfended  by  God's  law,  that  if  it  so  for- 
tuned that  all  the  bishopps  and  priests  were  dedde,  and  that  the 
word  of  God  shuld  there  unpreched,  the  sacrament  of  baptisme 
md  others  unministered,  the  king  of  that  region  shoulde  make 
hishopps  and  priests  to  supply  the  same  or  nor" 

•  Bishop  Burnet,  in  his  «•  History/*  gays  "  Stillingfleet  was  mistaken  as  to 
tfe®  date,'* 


4i 

A.     "  It  is  not  forbidden  by  God's  law."  Dcf.  p.  84-5. 

Second.  Of  Mr.  Wesley's  right  to  ordain.  As  tkere  seems 
to  be  no  difference  of  opinion  between  Mr.  E.  and  myself,  on  this 
topic,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  enlarge  That  Mr.  Wesley 
had  a  right  to  ordain,  is  unequivocally  asserted  in  his  letter  of 
Sep.  10,  1784,  amply  supported  by  proof  in  the  "-History 
and  Mystery,"  p.  61. — allowed  in  the  "Defence  of  our  Fa- 
thers' passim^  and  acknowledged  by  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church. 

Third.  The  causes  which  induced  Mr.  Wesley,  to  exercise 
this  right.  I.  The  distressed  situation  of  the  societies,  mentioned 
above.  2.  The  persuasion  and  entreaty  of  Mr.  Asbury  and 
others.  Mr.  Wesley  rei'ers  to  these  two  topics,  in  his  letter  of 
Sep.  10,  1784.  He  says  *'  In  this  peculiar  situation  some  thous- 
ands of  the  inhabitants  of  these  states  desire  my  advice  ;  and  in 
compliance  mlh  their  desire.,  I  have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch." 
Agam,  ''For  many  years  I  have  been  importuned  from  time  to 
time  to  exercise  this  right,  by  ordaining  part  of  our  travelling 
preachers.''  A  similar  account  is  given  in  "  Drew's  life  of  Dr, 
Coke."  Eng.  Ed.  p.  62.  And  Mr.  Moore  in  his  life  of  Wesley, 
inserts  a  letter  written  by  Dr.  Coke  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  h« 
solicits  Mr.  Wesley  to  exercise  his  right  of  ordaining.  "The 
more  maturely  I  consider  the  subject,  the  more  expedient  it  ap- 
pears 10  me,  that  the  power  of  ordaining  others  should  be  receiv- 
ed by  me  from  you,  by  the  in'position  of  your  hands.  As  the 
journey  is  long,  and  you  cannot  spare  me  often,  and  it  is  well  to 
provide  against  all  events.,  and  an  authority /ojma//(/  received  from 
you,  will  (I  am  conscious  of  it)  be  fully  admitted  by  the  people  ; 
and  my  exercising  the  office  of  ordination,*  without  that  lormal 
authority,  may  be  disputed,  if  there  be  any  opposition  on  any 
other  account ;  I  could,  therefore  earnestly  wish  you  would  ex- 
ercise that  power,  in  this  instance,  which  I  have  not  the  shadow 
of  a  donbt,t  but  God  hath  invested  you  with  for  the  good  of  our 
connexion."     Moore's  life  of  W  esley.  Vol.  2.  p.  276. 

The  Rev.  James  Creighton,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr. 
Samuel  Bradburn,  London  printed  1793,  says,  "You  take  notice 
of  a  meeting  which  Mr.  Wesley  had,  with  some  clergymen,  at 
Leeds,  in  August  1784,  at  which  he  consulted  them,  concerning 
the  ordination  of  preachers  for  America.  Mr.  Fletcher  was 
present,  and  1  believe  Mr.  Sellon,  and  two  or  three  others. 
They  did  not  approve  of  the  scheme^  because  it  seemed  inconsist- 

*  •♦  1  am  of  our  lute  venerable  father  Mr  Wesley's  opinion,  that  the  order 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  is  one  and  the  same  :  nor  do  1  think  that  the  repe- 
tition ot  the  imposition  of  iiands  for  the  same  office,  when  important  circum'- 
Oiances  require  it,  is  at  all  improper-''     Dr.  Coke- 

t  Mr  E.  considers  the  words,  "  I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,"  to  be 
of  so  much  importance,  as  to  be  entitled  to  be  put  in  capital  letters.  Def, 
p.  28.  He  remarks,  also,  at  the  bottom  of  that  page  "  Yet  in  the  face  of  this 
oroad  declaration,,  Mr.  M'Cainc  repeatedly  endeavours  to  make  out,  that  Dr. 


42 

ettt  with  Mr.  Wpsley's  former  professions  respecting  tbecliurch. 
Ur»on  this  the  meeting  was  abruptly  broken  up,  by  Mr.  WeSiCy's 
goir.g'out ''  p.  10. 

Fovrih.  Of  the  persons  who  assisted  Mr.  Wesley.  From 
the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr  Creighton  it  will  be  seen,  that  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Fletcher,  Mr.  Sellon  and  two  or  three  other  clergy- 
men had  been  consulted,  concerning  the  ordination  of  preachers 
for  America  ;  but  they  did  not  approve  of  the  scheme.  The 
only  clergymen  present  at  the  ordination  of  Mr.  VVhatcoat  and 
Mr.  Vasey  were  the  Rev.  James  Creighton  and  Dr.  Coke. 
Whether  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey 
deacons  first,  and  immediately  afterwards  ordained  them  elders, 
I  cannot  tell.  But  Mr.  VVhatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey  being  ordain- 
ed elders,  immediately  turned  round,  and  with  Mr.  Creighton, 
assisted  af  the  setting  apart  Dr.  Coke  a  superintendent:  and 
these  three  gentlemen  (Coke,  Whatcoat  and  Vasey,)  are  the 
"  three  regularly  ordained  clergy  "  as  they  are  called  in  the  book 
of  discipline,  who  were  sent  over  by  Mr.  Wesley  *  !  ! 

Fifth.  The  time  and  place.  Mr  Wesley  says  in  his  Jour- 
nal. Wednesday,  Sept.  i,  1784  "  Being  now  clear  in  my  own 
mind,  I  took  a  step  which  I  had  long  weighed  in  my  mind,  and 
appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey  to  go  and  serve  the 
desolate  sheep  in  America."  And  Dr.  Coke's  letter  of  appoint- 
ment is  dated  Sep.  2,  1784.  The  place  where  the  ceremony- 
was  performed  was  Bristol,  and  from  an  expression  in  Dr. 
Coke's  letter,  it  may  be  inferred,  that  it  was  done  in  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's private  chamber.  And  yet  Mr.  E.  says,  "Dr.  Coke's  or- 
dination was  performed  as  ordinations  usually  are." 

i»2xth.  To  what  rank  or  order  was  Dr.  Coke  raised  ;  or  with 
what  authority  or  "  powers"  was  he  invested,  by  the  impositiors 
of  Mr.  Wesley's  hands  and  prayer  .''  It  will,  no  doubt,  be  no- 
Coke  was  cloulilful  of  the  validity  of  his  own  ordination."  Yes;  and  I  say  so 
still;  nor  v\lll  this  "broad  declaration,"  notwitlistand  ng  it  is  put  in  capital 
letters,  prove  to  the  contrary.  1  would  remark  however,  that  Mr,  E's  lan- 
g.iuge  is  ambiguous  Of  what  does  Dr.  Coke  speak  so  confidently?  Not  of 
ordination  The  subject  to  which  he  refers,  and  of  which  he  says,  he  has 
"  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  "  is  not  his  own  episcopal  ordination  ;  althouijli 
Mr.  E.  would  make  his  readers  believe  it  was  ;  but  the  potoer  which  Mr. 
Wesley  possessed  as  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  England,  to  ordain  min- 
isters for  America.  The  doctor  Iiad  "  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt,"  but  Mr. 
Wesley  was  invested  with  ifds  po-wer.  But  surely  he  could  not  sa\ ,  he  had 
••  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt"  ofhis  own  ordnation  as  abishop,  when  at  the 
tinu  he  penned  these  words,  he  had  not  even  been  set  apart  as  a  superin- 
tendent. 

*i  btheve  this  is  the  only  place,  in  all  the  writings  of  the  Methodists, 
where  Methodist  preachers  are  called  "  clergy."  •  r  Wesley  never  ap- 
pliec^  the  tein>  to  anv  ot  his  preachers,  unless  they  were  ministei-s  of  the 
Church  ot  England.  '  The  writer  of  the  first  section  in  the  book  of  disci- 
pline was  not  satisfied  with  Mr  W  esley's  calling  them  ''  ordained  ministers  '' 
but  must  improve  tliem  into  "  three  regula  ly  ordained  clerg>.''  A  little 
paint  will  set  off  an  ugly  face,  and  give  a  freshness  and  bloom  to  a  sickly 
countenance. 


ticecl,  that  1  do  not  use  the  phrase,  "  by  his  ordination  ;"  for^' 
notwithstanding  Mr.  E's  cynical  remarks,  I  contend,  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  was  not  an  ordination,  nor  was  it  considered  by 
Mr.  Wesley  in  that  point  of  light.     In  my  "■  History  and  Mys- 
tery," I  stated,  that  the  letter,  which  Dr.  Coke  received  from 
"Mr.  Wesley  on  that  occasion,  was  "  a  letter  of  appointment,  not 
of  ordination."     Upon    which    Mr.    E.    remarks,    "on    Mr. 
M'Caine's  principles  of  verbality,  this  document  should  be  call- 
ed a  letter  of  set  apart^  for  these  are  the  icords  used   by   Mr, 
Wesley.     This  is  a  specimen  of  M'Caine's  logic  in   the  man- 
agement of  documents."     Def.  p.  23.     Perhaps  I  ought  to  thank 
Mr.  E.  for  this  compliment  to  my  logical  accuracy,  though  he 
may  not  thank   me  tor  exposing  what  is  involved  in  his  criti- 
cism.    He  censures  me  for  adhering  to  what  he  calls  the  "  prin- 
ciples of  verbality  ;"  clearly  implying  that  he  does  not.     Well, 
then,  let  him  reject  them.     But,  as  words  are  only  the  represent- 
atives of  ideas  or  things,  I  shall  use  the  words  that  stand  for 
those  things  ;  and  shall  call  things  by  their  proper  names.    Con- 
temptuously as  he  may  treat  my  "  principles  of  verbality,"  he 
ought  to  know,  that  an  infinitely  more  important  thing  than  Meth- 
odist episcopacy,   has   been  critically,  a-id  ably  defended,  by  a 
*'  principle"  of  seemingly   far  less   importance.     Mr  E.   pio- 
feses  to  be  a  Greek  scholar  ;  if  he  is,  he  cannot  be  ignorant  of 
the  force  of  tiie  '  r  ek  a.  tide.     If  he  will  look  into  Dr.  Middle- 
ton  on  the  Greek  article,  he  will  see  how  that  article  is  used  to 
prove  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.    Or  if  he   will   read    Dr. 
Clarke's  remarks  at  the  end  of  his  Commentary  on  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephcsians,  he  will  learn  ''  that  the   principal   design  of 
the•^e  writers"  (Mr.  Grenville  Sharp,  Rev.  Mr.   VVordsuorth, 
and  Dr.  Middeleton)"  was  to  exhibit  a  new  and  substantial  mode 
of  proving  the  divinity  ol  our  Lord  and  Saviour." 

Was  I  not  correct  in  calling  this  letter,  a  leiier  of  appoint" 
ment,  not  of  ordination  .-•  i  think  1  was.  For,  1.  If  the  iniposi-  ' 
tion  of  hands  had  been  considered  by  Mr.  Wesley  an  ordina- 
tion^ no  doubt  he  would  have  used  that  term  in  the  written  doc- 
imient.  2  He  used  the  word  '^ordained,"  with  reference  to 
the  other  ministers,  who  assisted  him  m  that  ceremony,  two  oi 
whom  were  Mr.  Wnatcoat  and  Mr,  Vasey.  "  1  have  this  day 
set  apart  as  a  superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands  and 
prayer,  (being  assisted  by  other  ordained  ministers)  rhomas 
Coke,  &c."  Why  this  studied  difference  in  the  choice  of  woids, 
if  the  transactions  were  ot  the  same  character  ?  Why  does  he 
use  the  phrase  ''  set  apart  as  a  superintendent,"  when  speaking 
of  Dr.  Coke  ;  and  then  use  the  term  "ordained,"  when  speak- 
ing of  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Whatcoat  and  Mr.  Vasey,  il  the 
one  was  an  oi'dination  as  well  as  the  oilier  .-*  3.  He  makes  no 
diileience  in  their  order^  but  expresses  himself  in  the  same 
language,  when  speaking  of  the  worK,  which  they  were  ap- 


44 

pointed  to  perform.  Tn  the  minutes  of  conference  for  1786,  he 
says  ;  "  I  appointed  three  of  our  labourers  to  go  and  help  them, 
by  not  only  preaching  the  word  of  God,  but  likewise  adminis- 
tering the  Lord's  supper  and  baptizing  their  children."  4.  Mr, 
Wesley  himself  used  the  term  '■'■  appointed'"'  in  the  letter  which 
Dr.  Coke  brought  over  with  him,  dated  Bristol,  Sep.  10th,  1784. 
*'  I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  As- 
bury  to  be  joint-sunerintendents  &c."  As  Mr.  Wesley  did  not 
ordain  Mr.  Asbury,  but  merely  appointedh'im  a  superintendent  ; 
neither  did  he  ordain  Dr.  Coke  a  superintendent,  but  appointed 
him.  Their  names  were  coupled  together  in  the  same  sentence, 
and  both,  alike,  are  said  to  be  appointed.  The  autliority  vvith 
which  they  were  invested  was  the  same  ;  and  the  source  whence 
that  authority  emanated,  was  the  same  also.  5  And  even,  Mr. 
E.  notwithstanding  his  hypercritical  remarks,  forgets  himself, 
or  does  not  scruple  to  call  it  an  "  appointment,^^  and  an  "  appoint' 
ing'>'>  when  speaking  of  Dr.  Coke's  being  commissioned  to  super- 
intend the  American  societies. 

Although  I  thought  it  necessary  to  put  down  this  puerile 
criticism,  it  is  of  greater  moment  to  ascertain,  to  what  rank  the 
doctor  was  raised,  in  virtue  of  his  appointment  to  the  office  of  a 
superintendent.  The  reader,  no  doubt,  will  bestow  all  his  at- 
tention on  this  part  of  the  subject ;  because  it  is  upon  this  point, 
the  whole  of  the  controversy  turns  ;  and  indeed,  it  may  be  truly 
aaid,  upon  it,  the  whole  of  the  episcopal  edifice  rests.  I  shall 
therefore,  in  the  first  place,  collect  some  of  Mr.  E's  authorities, 
and  present  his  views  upon  the  subject,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  as- 
certain them  :  and  then  "  I,  also,  will  shew  my  opinion.'' 

Upon  a  cursory  perusal  of  the  "Defence  of  our  Fathers," 
the  reader  might  take  up  the  idea,  that  Mr.  E.  had  somewhere 
stated,  what  he  meant  by  an  episcopal  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, and  what,  by  the  term  bishop ;  for  he  talks  about  "  our 
acceptation  of  the  term."  Def.  p.  27.  If  he  has  any  where  de- 
fined the  episcopal  form  of  government,  I  ha\  e  not  been  able  to 
find  it  :  nor  to  learn,  by  any  thmg  which  he  has  written,  what  is 
bis  acceptation  of  "  a  Methodist  bishop."  Some  times  he  re- 
presents a  bishop,  as  of  the  same  order  as  a  presbyter.  Dg^.  p.  10 
and  34.  At  other  times,  he  says,  "  In  whatever  sense  distinct 
erdination  constitutes  distinct  orders,  in  the  same  sense,  Mr. 
Wesley  certainly  intended  that  we  should  have   three  orders.''''* 


*Tiie  following  anecdote  will  illustrate  the  manner  by  which  Mr.  E.  makes 
three  orders  '  out  of  two  "  A  certain  gentleman  had  a  son  whom  he  sent 
to  a  distant  school.  The  boy,  m  tead  ot  applying  himself  to  his  studies, 
spent  his  time  in  idleness.  At  the  time  of  vacation,  he  returned  to  his  fa. 
ther,  who  inq  lired  ot  him  h  .w  no  ha.l  spent  lus  time  at  school,  the  boy, 
with  a  great  deal  of  smartness  replied,  1  have  been  learning  chop»Iogic,  sir. 
Cliop-logic!  saidthe  oldman  in  surprse,  what  is  that.'  Why  father  don't 
you  know  what  chop-logic  is?  No  indeed  my  son,  1  do  not.  Well  that;, 
said  the  boy,  1  can  explain  it  to  you.    At  that  moment,  the  servant  happen- 


45 

Def.  p.  38.  In  seme  places  in  his  book,  he  attempts  to  draw  a 
distincTion  between  an  "  episcopacy  in  facl,''  and  an  episcopacy 
under  the  name  of  superintendency  ;  between  the  "  title"  o(  bish- 
op and  the  "  episcopal  office."  As  if  such  a  distinction  is  recon- 
cilable with  common  honesty  or  common  sense  ;  and  by  attri- 
.buting  these  things  to  Mr.  Wesley,  he  makes  hmi  out  a  fool  or  a 
knave. 

I  ask  the  reader,  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  truth,  of  him  who 
"  requireth  truth  in  the  inward  parts,'  if  he  can  believe,  that  the 
Rev.  John  Wesley,  this  holy  and  good  man,  who  was  without 
guile,  and  who  was  accustomed  to  speak  with  unparalleled  per- 
spicuity and  precision,  intended  to  impose  the  present  form  of 
episcopal  government  on  the  American  Methodists  ;  and  if  his 
opposition  and  objection  were  merely  to  the  "  title"  of  bishop? 
I  ask  him  if  he  can  believe,  what  Mr.  E.  has  asserted  of  this 
aged  minister  of  Christ  }  If  he  can  believe  this  of  a  man,  who, 
for  sixty  five  years,  withstood  undismayed,  the  united  strata- 
gems of  men  and  fiends  :  a  man  whom  some  of  the  dignitaries  of 
the  church,  and  of  the  right  honourable  of  the  land,  had  vilified, 
called  a  fool,  a  knave,  a  fellow  not  fit  to  live  ?  Can  he  believe 
that  such  a  man  would  appear  before  the  world  as  recommend- 
ing the  episcopal  form  of  government  "  in  fact,"  but  objecting 
in  the  strongest  manner  possible  to  the  title  of  bishop  .''  Can  he 
really  believe  this  of  a  man  who  would  say  '*  Idis})ute  not  about 
words  .?"  I  think  it  is  not  possible  that  any  candid  person  can 
believe  this  of  him,  who  could,  ex  animo,  expi-ess  himself  in  the 
following  manner.  "  And  is  not  truth  as  well  as  justice  fallen  in 
our  streets  .''  For  whospeaketh  i/ie  Truth  as  it  is?  Who  is 
there  that  makes  a  conscience  of  speaking  the  thing  as  it  is? 
Who  scruples  telling  officious  lies  ?  The  varying  Irom  Truth 
in  order  to  do  good  .f"'  And  it  is  this  man  that  Mr.  E.  represents 
as  guiltv  of  the  most  pitiful  quibbling  "  about  words."  1  would 
entreat  all  who  would  honour  God  ;  promote  his  cause  ;  respect 
the  ti  uth  ;  recommend  religion  ;  exemplify  in  their  conduct  the 
principles  of  the  New  Testament ;  or  venerate  the  name  and 
memory  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  to  banish,  fiom  their  mind* 
forever,  the  unfounded  and  injurious  distinctions  on  the  above 

ed  to  bring'  in  a  dish,  upon  which  were  two  fowls.  Father,  said  the  boj'j 
how  many  tow's  are  there  upon  that  dish?  Two,  my  son  Now,  father,' I 
can  demonstrate  to  you  that  there  are  three.  The  son,  taking  up  a  knife, 
and  pointing  to  one  of  them,  asked,  how  many  is  that  father  f  One,  saia  the 
old  man  Then  placing  liis  knife  upon  the  other  fowl,  he  asked  the  same 
question  ;  to  whicl)  the  father  answered  two.  Now  father,  said  the  son,  do 
not  o?je  and  rwo  make  three  P  I  have,  ihns,  demonstrated  to  you,  by  the 
rules  of  chop-logic,  that  there  are  three  fowls  upon  that  dish  However 
conclusive  such  an  argument  miglit  be  to  the  son,  -the  father  thought  he 
could  demonstrate  the  fallacy  of  it.  Accordingly,  taking  up  one  fowl,  he 
placed  it  on  lus  wife's  plate,  as  he  said,  for  her  dinner.  I'he  second  fo^'  1  he 
would  take  for  himself.  And  the  third  he  would  leave  the  son  for  his  chop- 
toirici 


46 

lop"ics,  laid  down  in  the  "  Defence  of  our  Fathers."  Tf  suck 
double  dealing  ;  such  prevaricalion  ;  sucli  mental  reservaiion  ; 
such  deception,  would  vitiate  and  nullify  a  policy  of  insura.ice, 
or  any  civil  contract  (and  I  am  confident  they  would)  how,  in  the- 
name  of  Heaven,  can  they  promote  the  cause  of  righteousness 
and  truth  ?  Such  doctrines  may  make  deists,  or  confirm  infidels 
in  their  opposition  to  the  New  Testament  ;  but  they  can  never 
secure  the  approbation  of  the  intelligent  and  pious,  or  ODtain 
their  esteem  for  the  men  who  broach  them. 

I  shall  now  "  show  my  opinion,"  and  in  doing  this,  I  shall  first 
eJ^amine  the  account  given  by  Mr.  Wesley.     He  says,  *•'  I  have 
this  day  set  apart  as  a  superintendent,  &c.'"     The  first  thing  to 
be  ascertained  is,  the  meaning  of  the  word  superintendent.     And 
what  is  a  supermtendent  ?     "  A  superintendent."  says  Dr.  John- 
son,  '*  is  one  who  overlooks  others  authoritatively."     This  is 
the  plain  meaning  of  the  word,  and  in  its  common  application,  it 
is  used  to  denote  the  person  who  oversees  others  with  authori- 
ty.    Hence,  we    frequently  read   of  superintendents  of  public 
works  ;  superintendents  of  loads  ;  superintendents  of  cotton  fac- 
tories and   such  like  establishments  ;  superintendents  of  public 
schools  ;  superintendents  of  female   charitable  institutions,  &c. 
&c.  But,  says  one,  Mr.  Wesley  used  the  word  in  an  ecclesias- 
tical sense  by  applying  it  to  a  church  officer.     And  suppose  he 
did,  what  other  meaning  did  he,  or  could  he  convey  by  it,  than 
what  is  given  in  the  above  definition  ?     It  was  because  this  was 
the  very  work  for  which  he  made  choice  of  Dr.  Coke,  that  he 
designated  him  by  this  title.     There  were  several  societies  and 
preachers  in  America,   when  Mr.  Wesley  appointed  Dr.  Coke 
to  superintend  them.     When  he  invested  him  with  authority  to 
overlook  those  societies  and  preachers  ;  and  in  his  name,  and  as 
his  delegate,  to  exercise   the  "powers"  which  he  deputed  to 
him.  There  was,  therefore,  no  reason  to  suppose,  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, by  setting  apart  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superintendent,  ordained  him 
a  bishop.    There  was  not  then,  nor  is  there  now,  any  just  ground 
to  depart  from  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term.     For  whe- 
ther we  use  it  in  reference  to  civil  transactions,  or  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  the  meaning  is  the  same  :  a  superintendent  being  one  who 
over-looks  others  authoritatively      This  being  the  meaning  of 
the  term,  it  follows,  that  every  presiding  elder  of  a  district  is, 
from  the  very  nature  of  his  office  and  the  work  he  is  appointed 
to  do,  a  superintendent.    For,  in  the  book  of  discipline,  in  answer 
to  the  second  question  in  the  section  which  treats  of  his  office, 
it  is  stated  to  be  his  duty,  "  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop,  to 
take  charge  of  all  the  elders  and  deacons,  travelling  and   local 
preachers,  and  exhorters  in  his  district."     And  what  is  all  this, 
but  overlooking  others  authoritatively  ?     Does  he  not  do  it  by 
the  appointnmit  of  the  bishop  ?     Does  he  not  do  it  in  his  name  ? 
Is  he  not  responsible  to  him  alone  ?  And  does  he  not  overlook 


47 

those  preachers  with  authority  ?  Now,  although  this  is  the  duty 
of  a  presidin<j^  elder,  no  advocate  for  episcopacy  ever  ^id,  that 
a  presiding  elder  and  a  bishop,  in  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  are  one  and  the  same  in  rank  and  authority.  O  !  no. 
Methodist  bishops,  ah  hough  nothing  more  in  the  commence- 
ment than  presiding  elders  or  superintendents,  as  Mr.  E  lias  ob- 
served a!)Ove,  will  not  let  presiding  elders  encroach  on  their 
prerogatives  ;  yet  they  feel  no  repugnance  to  drop  their  original 
name,  superintendents,  and  assume  the  more  dignitied  and  honor- 
able one  of  bishops  ! !  ! 

Bui  was  not  Dr.  Coke  ordained  a  bishop,  when  Mr.  Wesley 
set  him  apart  as  a  superintendent  .-*  Before  1  answer  this  ques- 
tion, I  must  understand  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  bish- 
op." Mr  E.  has  displayed  what  Utile  smattering  he  has  of  the 
Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin,  in  giving  us  the  etymology  of  the 
word  ;  and  closes  his  short  account,  by  telling  us  -'that  bishop 
is  any  man  that  hath  charge  and  office  for  any  business,  civil  or 
ecclesiastical."  "  And  hence  superintendent,  from  the  Latin,  is 
of  precise  y  the  same  import  as  bishop  from  the  Greek."  Def. 
p.  66  That  the  words  "  bishop'  and  "superintendent"  are  both 
derived  from  the  same  r"-ot,  I  admit ;  but  that  they  are  both 
*^  of  precisely  the  same  import,''''  I  deny.  The  term  "superintend- 
ent" is  used  with  reference  to  '■'■civil  busmess"  only,  or  such 
subjects  as  have  been  enumerated  above,  and  never  applied  by 
ecclesiatica!  writers,  to  a  church  olhcer,  unless  it  be  in  an  ac- 
commodated, restricted,  or  qualified  sense.  Whereas,  the  term 
"•  bishop"  is  never  applied  by  eccleeiaslical  writers  to  "  a  man 
having  charge  of  cm/'  matters,  but  is  universally  used  in  an  ec- 
clesiastical sense,  and  applied  to  an  officer  of  the  church. 

The  ditlieience  between  a  superintendent  and  bishop,  bein,"* 
fixed,  the  next  thing  to  be  considered  is,  to  what  rank,  or  order 
does  a  bishop  belong .''  Upon  this  subject,  it  is  well  known,  that 
there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  ecclesiastical  writers. 
Some  affirm  that  there  are  three  orders  of  ministers,  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons.  Whilst  others  contend  that  there  are 
but  two  viz  :  presbyters  and  deacons.  Those,  who  espouse 
this  latter  opinion  say,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  convert- 
ible terms,  and  that  they  were  originally  used  indifferently  of 
persons  in  the  same  order.  Whilst  the  other  class  insist  that 
bishops  are  a  distinct  order  from  presbyters  and  superior  to 
them.  It  would  not  be  proper  to  swell  this  work,  by  examining 
this  matter  ;jro  and  con.  The  proper  question  to  be  considered 
is,  what  was  Mr.  Wesley's  opinion  upon  the  subject  }  Because, 
if  his  opinion  can  be  clearly  ascertained,  and  fully  established,, 
it  must  be  proved  that  he  changed  that  opinion,  or  we,  as  Meth- 
odists, must  admit  it,  whatever  it  be. 


4'8' 

The  question,  is  now,  in  what  light  did  Mr.  Wesley  consider 
a  bishop,  at  the  time  he  "  set  apart"  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superin- 
tendent? And  to  this  question,  the  most  clear  and  unequivocal 
answer  can  be  given,  in  Mr.  Wesley's  own  words.  He  says,  in 
the  very  letter  which  he  gave  Dr.  Coke  to  be  circulated  among 
the  American  societies,  dated  Bristol  Sep.  10.  1784,  eight  days 
after  the  appointment  of  the  doctor  as  a  superintendent,  "  Lord 
King's  account  of  the  primitive  church  convinced  me  many 
years  ago,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order.""  Can 
any  thing  be  more  explicit  than  this  statement?  What  opinion, 
then,  must  we  form  of  Mr.  Wesley  if  what  Mr.  E.  says  of  him 
be  true?  Could  he  possibly,  without  being  guilty  of  the  greatest 
duplicity  and  falsehood,  declare  that  there  were  but  two  orders^ 
if  he  intended  by  setting  Dr.  Coke  apart  as  a  superintendent, 
that  the  American  societies  should  have  i/iree^^  If  Mr.  E.  cannot 
defend  "our  fathers"  without  fixing  on  them  such  a  foul  and  in- 
delible stain,  he  ought  never  undertake  their  defence  again.* 

As  Mr.  Wesley  was  convinced  by  "  Lord  King's  account  of 
tbe  primitive  church"  that  "  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the 
same  order ;"  it  may  be  acceptable  to  the  reader  to  present  him 
with  an  extract  or  two  from  the  work  of  this  celebrated  writer. 
"  It  is  expressly  said  by  the  ancients,  that  there  were  but  two 
distinct  ecclesiastical  orders,  viz  :  bishops  and  deacons,  or  pres- 
byters and  deacons  ;  and  if  there  were  but  these  two,  presbyters 
cannot  be  distinct  from  bishops,  for  then  there  would  be  three. 
Now,  that  there  were  but  two  orders  viz:  bishops  and  deacons, 
is  plain."  p.  68.  Again  he  says,  "  There  were  only  the  two 
orders  of  bishops  and  deacons  instituted  by  the  apostles.  And 
if  they  ordained  but  these  two,  I  think  no  one  had  ever  a  com- 
mission to  add  a  third,  or  split  one  into  two,  as  mu-t  be  done, 
if  we  seperate  the  order  of  presbyters  from  the  order  of  bish- 
ops." p.  69. 

I  said,  above,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  convertible 
terms.  Lest,  however,  my  meaning  should  be  misunderstood  ; 
or  lest  it  should  be  supposed  I  had  conceded  too  much  by  this 
acknowledgment,  I  shall  make  one  or  two  remarks  upon  it. 
Those  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  say  tbere  are  but  two  orders 


♦  Of  one  of  his  opponents  Mr.  Wesley  said,  ''But  what  does  this  smooth 
candid  writer  endeavour  to  prove,  with  all  the  softness  and  good  humour 
imaghiable  ?  Only  this  point  (to  ex|*ress  it  in  plain  English)  that  I  am  a 
double-tongued  knave,  an  old  crafty  hypocrite,  saying  one  thing  and  mean- 
ing another."  Wesley's  works.  Vol,  X  p.  452.  In  another  place  he  says. 
"Neither  do  I  conceal  my  sentiments.  Few  men  less"  p.  238.  And  yet 
Mr  E.  says,  •'  Mr.  \^'esley  certainly  intended  that  we  should  have  three  or. 
ders;  '  notwithstanding  Mr-  Wesley  declared  that  there  are  but /wo  He 
says  also  that  he  recommended  an  "  episcopacy  in  fact  "  although  he  was 
opposed  to  the  •'  title"  of  bishop  !  In  this  way  does  the  ••  stnooth  candid" 
Mr.  E  make  out  the  Rev,  John  Wesley, "  a.  double-tongued  knave,"  or  "an 
old  crafty  hypocrite" 


40 

of  ministers  m  the  church  of  Christ,  preshyters  and  deacons^ 
frequently  use  the  terms  presbyter  and  bishop  iiiditfermtlv,  at 
Mr.  Wesley  did,  meaning  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the 
same  order.  Of  this  class,  there  are  some,  \yho  sometimes  use 
the  term  superintendent  synonymously  \vith  bishop.  But  it  ought 
ta  be  noticed,  that  of  those  who  maintain  that  there  are  three  or- 
ders, bishops,  presbyters  and  dt-acons,  bishops  and  presbyters 
are  never  used  synonymously,  nor  do  they  apply  the  term  superin- 
dcn'is  to  their  bishops.  The  former  class  admit  the  distinction 
which  is  laid  down  by  Leigh  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  "  Between  a 
bishop  and  presbyter  there  is,  nevertheless,  this  difference. 
Presbyter  is  the  name  of  an  order,  bishop  is  the  name  of  an 
ojice  in  that  order."  And  with  this,  agrees  the  statement  of 
Lord  King.  "  So  that  there  were  only  the  two  orders  of  dea- 
cons and  presbyters  ;  the  former  whereof,  being  the  inferior  or- 
der, never  sat  at  their  ecclesiastical  conventions,  but  like  serv- 
ants, stood  and  waited  on  the  latter,  who  sat  down  on  thronoi  or 
■eats  in  the  form  of  a  semicircle,  whence  they  are  frequently 
called  concessus  pretbyterii,  or  the  session  of  the  presbytery  : 
in  which  session  he  that  was  mote  peculiarly  the  bishop  or 
minister  of  the  parish,  sat  at  the  head  of  the  semicircle,  on  a 
•eat  somewhat  elevated  above  those  of  his  colleagues,  as  Cy- 
prian calls  them ;  and  so  was  distinguished  from  them,  by  his 
priority  in  the  same  order,  but  not  by  his  being  oi"  another 
order.''  p.  74.  "  It  was  then  judged  necessary,  that  one  man  of 
distinguished  gravity  and  wisdom  should  preside  in  the  council 
of  presbyters,  in  order  to  distribute  among  his  colleagues  their 
several  tasks  and  (o  be  a  centre  of  union  to  the  whole  society." 
Mosheim.  Vol.  1.  p.  103. 

"  The  idea  that  equals,"  says  Mr.  E.  "  cannot,  from  among 
themselves,  constitute  an  oflicer,  who  as  an  o^cer  shall  be  supe- 
rior to  any  of  those,  by  whom  he  was  constituted,  is  contradict- 
ed by  all  experience  and  history,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical ; 
and  equally  so  by  common  sense.  The  contrary  is  too  plain 
to  require  illustration."  Def  p.  39.  A  little  "illustration,'* 
however,  may  point  out  the  fallacy  of  Mr.  E's  doctrine,  and 
•how  its  inapplicability  to  Methodist  episcopacy.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  a  number  of  oilicers  of  the  army,  ail  equal  in  point  of 
rank  or  order,  agree  to  dine  together  upon  a  certain  occasion  ; 
and  when  tliey  lire  assembled,  they  appoint  one  of  their  body  to 
preside  at  the  dinner.  This  gentleman  accepts  the  appointment, 
anfl  accordingly  takes  his  seat  at  the  head  of  the  table.  Will 
any  man,  possessed  of  one  grain  of  common  sense,  say,  that  this 
gentleman,  by  acting  as  president  of  the  meeting,  has  been  pro- 
moted to  a  superior  rank  or  order  than  that  to  which  he  belonged 
when  he  sat  down  to  table.  Supposing,  for  instance,  all  were 
captains,  did  the  president,  who  himself  was  a  captain  when  he 
•at  down,  rise  up  a  major. J*  Or,  if  all  were  lieutenants,  was  the 
presiding  lieutenant  promoted,  in  consequence  of  his  sitting  at 


60 

the  head  of  the  table,  to  be  a  captain  ?  "Illustration"  shows  the 
absurdityofMr.  E's doctrine,  and  its  inapplicability  to  Methodist 
episcopacy  ;  and  proves  there  is  not  the  least  similarity,  be- 
tween the  case  of  "  equals"  constituting,  "from  among  them- 
selves, an  officer  greater  than  themselves,"  and  the  case  of  a 
Methodist  bishop.  The  appointment  of  the  one  was  for  thai  par- 
ticular time  only.  He  required  no  new  commission  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  president,  he  exercised  no  authority  over  his  bio- 
ther  officers,  nor  was  he  raised  to  higher  military  rank  inconse- 
quence of  presiding  at  the  festive  board.  Not  so  with  a  Method- 
ist bishop,  whom  Mr.  E.  would  pass  ofl'  on  us  "  as  an  officer"*^ 
constituted  such  by  his  '■'equals.''''  The  moment  he  is  "•consti- 
tuted" a  bishop,  he  is  a  bishop  for  life;  he  obtains  a  new  com- 
mission to  enable  him  to  discharge  the  duties  ot  his  new  station; 
he  exercises  an  authority  over  his  brethren  in  the  ministi.y  that 
he  never  exercised  before,  and  he  is  raised  to  a  higher  eccles;..  ;- 
tical  lank  or  order'm  consequence  of  his  being  constituted  a  bishop. 

It  is  well  known,  that  there  are  many  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  who  lay  great  stress  upon  the 
convertibility  of  the  terms  superintendent  and  bishop  ;  and  seem 
to  consider,  this  circumstance  alone,  an  argument  sufficiently 
cogent  to  prove  the  validity  ot  Methodist  episcopacy.  Mr. 
Wesley,  say  they,  ordained  Dr.  Coke  a  superintendent,  there- 
fore he  ordained  him  a  bishop  ;  for  a  bishop  and  a  superintend- 
ent are  synonymous  leims.  As  this  is  a  favourite  topic  with  the 
friends  of  the  episcopacy,  I  shall  ofi'er  a  few  remarks,  in  addition 
to  those  already  advanced  upon  the  signification  of  these  terms  ; 
and  their  distinct  and  peculiar  application  by  ecclesiastical 
writers,  to  prove,  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  consider  the  terms 
as  synonymous,  *  and  surely  Mr.  W  esley  must  be  allowed  to 
know  his  own  mind  best. 

Mr.  Moore,  in  his  life  of  Mr.  Wesley,  says,  "  with  respect  to 
the  title  of  bishop,  I  know  that  Mr.  Wesley  enjoined  the  doctor 
and  his  associates,  and  in  tlie  most  solemn  manner.,  that  it  slinuld 
not  be  taken.  In  a  letter  to  Mrs.  Gilbert,  the  widow  of  the  ex- 
cellent Nathaniel  Gilbert  Esq.  of  Antigua,  a  copy  of  which  now 
lies  before  me,  he  states  this  in  the  strongest  mannai't     In  this, 

*  In  the  Britisli  Minutes,  Mr.  William  Black  is  entered  a  "  general  super- 
inti-wdent  for  the  British  dumiiiions  in  America,"  from  the  year  1791,  to  the 
year  1808  inclusive:  and  yet,  no  onf  ever  thought  that  Mr.  Black  was  a  bishop. 
From  the  year  1810  to  the  year  1812  inclusive,  Lr.  (Joke  stands  on  the  liiit- 
ish  Minutes  as  "  general  superintendent  ot  tlie  Irish,  V  elsh,  \>  est  India 
Nova-Scotia,  and  Newfoundland  missions :"  a.  d  yet  nobody  ever  said  that 
Dr.  Coke  by  virtue  of  that  appointment,  was  a  bishop.  1  he  Kev.  V\  illmm 
Fosse  is  entered  a  "  general  superintendent  tor  the  Guernsey  District  for 
ldi20:"  yet  Mr.  Fosse  is  no  bishop- 

tl  have  written  to  Rev.  Henry  Moore,  Mr.  "Wesley's  birgrapher,  for  a 
co])y  of  tins  letter;  and  for  information  upon  other  matters:  but,  as  yet 
I  have  received  no  answer. 


51 

and  in  every  similar  deviation^  I  cannot  be  the  apolos^ist  of  Dr. 

CoU'--  ;  audi  can  state,  in  contradiction  to  all  that  Dr.  VVhiiclifad 
an<i  Mr.  Hniiiipson  have  said,  that  Mr.  Wesley  nevtr  ^ave  Ids 
sanction  to  any  of  these  thinjfs  ;  nor  was  he  the  author  of  one 
liii^  of  all  that'Or.  Coke  published  in  America,  on  this  suhject. 
}\\s  views  on  these  points,  were  very  different  from  those  of  his 
zealous  son  in  thp  sjospel.''  Moore's  Life  of  VVesIey.  Vol.  2. 
p.  279  Now,  admitting  the  truth  of  Mr  Moore's  testimony,  aud 
Mr.  E.  himself,  hovvever  mucii  he  may  dislike  it,  does  not  dare 
to  impui^n  it,  will  it  not  fairly  and  conclusively  follow,  that  Mr. 
VV>--!e)  explained  "  his  views,"  of  this  transaction,  to  Dr.  Coke 
at  the  time  he  "scf  him  "  apart''''  as  a  superintendent?  That  he 
pointed  out  to  him  the  nature  of  the  office  he  was  to  fill,  and  the 
paiticular  work  he  was  to  perform?  Ttiat  he  enlarged  on  these 
topics,  so  as  to  be  perlectly  understood  by  the  doctor?  That  he 
enjoined  him  "  and  his  associates  in  the  most  solemn  manner  that 
the  ti'le  of  bishop  should  not  be  taken  ;"  and  yet,  in  the  face  of 
all  tiiis  exj)lanation,  in  despite  of  all  this  entreaty,  in  defiance  of 
all  this  sacred  and  most  "  solemn"  injunction.  Dr.  Coke  assumed 
the  title  of  bishop,  tbrmed  the  societies  into  an  independent 
chuich,  with  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  republished  the 
Prayer  Book,  in  which  were  the  minutes  of  conference  of  this 
episcopal  church,  at  his  own  expense,  all  of  which  were  contrary 
to  Mr.  Wesley's  ''views''  and  wishes.  It  matters  not  with  me,  nor 
will  it  weigh  a  feather  with  any  uiipartial  man,  what  were  Mr. 
Weslej's  reasons  for  the  abhorrence  he  felt  to  the  title  of  bish- 
op; (whether  it  was  "because  of  the  associations  ordinarily 
connected  with  it  in  the  public  mind  in  England,"  Def  p.  47;  as 
if  the  sphere  of  the  doctor's  ministrations,  w^as  to  be  England  and 
not  America,  where  there  were  no  bishops  at  the  time,)  it  was 
enough,  that  the  doctor  knew  Mr,  Wesley  was  opposed  to  it.  I 
contend,  therefore,  let  the  reasons  be  what  they  may,  that  Dr. 
Coke  was  under  the  most  solemn  and  sacred  obligations  to  re- 
gard Mr.  Wesley's  advice.  That  he  was  bound  by  every  prin- 
ciple of  lionor  and  honesty,  in  all  good  faith,  rigidly  to  adhere  to 
the  instructions  he  had  received.  That  in  departing  from  them, 
he  violated  a  most  solemn  injunction.  That  in  doing  this  he 
rendered  himself  extremely  culpable,  and  that  his  conduct 
therein,  cannot  be  defended  by  Mr.  E.  or  a  thousand  such  apol- 
ogists. 

If  Mr.  Wesley  intended  to  impose  the  present  episcopal  form  \ 
of  government  on  the  American  Methodists;  and  if  his  opposi- 
tion  was  merely  to  the  title  of"  bishop,"  1  ask,  would  a  trifling  , 
objection  to  a  mere  title  have  been  consistent  with  his  life  and 
published  opinions?  If  he  considered  the  terms  superintendent  and 
bisho))  synonymous,  let  the  term  "  superintendent"  be  substitut- 
ed for  "bishop,"  and  let  his  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury  be  read  with 
this  change,  "  Do  not  seek  to  be  something.     One  instance  of 


S2 

this  your  greatness  has  given  me  great  concern.  How  can  you. 
how  dare  you  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  superintendent  '?  1 
fffaW,  I  shudder  at  the  very  thought  of  your  being  called  superin." 
tendent !  Men  may  call  me  a  knave  or  a  Jool^  a  rascal  a  scown- 
dre/,  and  I  am  content  ;  but  they  shall  never,  with  my  consent, 
call  me  a  superintendent  V  In  what  light  would  such  a  letter 
be  considered,  it  addressed  to  the  person  who  had  been  ordain- 
ed a  bishop  by  the  writer,  on  the  supposition  that  the  writer 
considered  the  terms  "  superintendent"  and  "  bishop"  synony- 
jnous  ?  It  would  have  been,  not  only  an  insult  to  common  sense, 
but  it  would  have  been  downright  wickedness. 

But  "  the  letter  coiitains  expressions  too  severed  Def  p.  47. 
So  says  a  v^ould-be-bish()p.  As  I  intend  to  take  up  these  severe 
expressions  again;  I  shall,  in  the  mean  time,  only  remark,  that  the 
severity  of  the  expressions  is  a  clear  pioof  thai  Mr.  W  esley  knew 
the  otience  to  be  great.  He  knew  what  explanations  he  had 
given  to  Dr.  Coke.  He  knew  what  objections  he  had  to  the 
episcopal  form  of  government,  and  the  title  bishop^  He  knew 
the  injunctions  which  had  been  solemnly  imposed.  On  the  sup- 
position, that  one  term  had  only  been  substituted  tor  another,  of 
precisely  the  same  import,  the  severity  of  the  expressions  are 
perfectly  unjustifiable.  Not  so,  however,  if  Mr  Wesley  attri- 
buted the  change  to  ambition^  a  desire  to  be  "girca^;"  "  to  a  de- 
viation from  the  simplicity  which  was  in  Christ;"  to  adisposition 
to  "strut;"  to  a  departure  from  his  explicit  instructions;  to  a  Ti"la= 
tion  o!  his  ^'■most  solemn  inj  unctions"  and  commands  Had  such  in- 
structions been  delivered  by  a  sovereign  to  his  minister  pleni- 
potentiary at  a  foreign  court,  and  had  such  instructions  been  vi- 
olated, would  not  the  violation  of  them  have  subjected  t^^ucb 
minister  plenipotentiary,  to  something  moie  than  "severe  ex-' 
pressions,"  in  reproof?  Or  if  such  commands  had  been  deliver- 
ed, by  the  commander  in  chief  of  an  army,  to  any  of  his  generals, 
or  to  any  inferior  officer,  what  would  have  been  the  sentence  of 
a  court  martial,  upon  proof  of  the  violation  of  those  orders,  I 
leave  to  military  m^n  to  say. 

That  Mr.  Wesley  considered  the  offence  to  be  great,  may  be 
argued  from  his  using  similar  entreaties  on  another  impoiianli 
occasion.  At  a  certain  time,  some  of  the  English  Methodists 
were  greatly  liarassed  by  persecutors.  The  benefits  intended 
by  the  act  of  toleration  were  denied  them.  Mr.  Wesley  saw 
this  with  a  degree  of  pain  he  seldom  experienced.  Consider^ 
ing  it  to  be  his  duty  to  expostulate  with  those  who  were  niosl 
zealous  in  this  work,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  a  prelate,  in  whose 
diocess  this  persecution  most  abounded  ;  in  which  he  says,  "  O 
my  Lord,  for  God^s  sake,  for  Clirist''s  sake,  for  pity's  sake,  suffer 
*he  poor  people  to  enjoy  their  religious,  as  well  as  civil  liberty." 
Mr.  Moore  says,  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  "clearly 
»hows  hotv  muck  he  felt  that  deviation  from  the  siaiplicity  which 


is  in  Christ,"  in  the  assumption  of  the  title  of  bishop  vol.  2  p, 
285.  The  occasion  in  both  instances  vyas  alarming  ;  and  he 
used  nearly  the  very  terrtis  in  the  case  of  the  [jorsecution  that 
he  did  respecting  tfte  title  of  bishop.  Was  the  language  to  the 
persecuting  bishop  too  strong  }  Was  he  opposed  to  persecu- 
tion ouly  in  name  ?  If  this  can  be  believed,  then  it  may  be  be- 
lieved, that  all  the  objection  he  had  to  episcopacy,  was  to  the 
title  of  bishop  !  ! 

The  last  thing  to  be  noticed,  is  the  performance  of  the  cere- 
mony of  "  setting  apart"  Dr.  Coke  to  the  office  of  a  superintend- 
ent, which  Mr.  E.  says  was  an  ordination.     "  It  this  was  not  an 
ordination,  we  should  be  glad  to  be   informed  what  constitutes 
one  ?  It  was   performed  as  ordinations   usually    are  ;  with  the 
usual  solemnities  ;  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer  ;  with  the 
assistance  of  other  ordained  ministers  ;  and  under  the  sanction  of 
Almighty  God.     It  it  was  not  intended  as  an  ordination,  it  was 
certainly  a  very  solemn  mockery  ;  a  trifling  with  sacred  things, 
to  charge  iMr.  Wesley  with  which,  would  be  loading  his  memo- 
ry with   obloquy  indeed."     Def.  p  24.     To  this  I   answer,  f  1) 
that  the  precise  meaning  of  ordination,  according  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's own  declaration,  is  to  be  determined  by  the  ordainer,  not 
the  ordained.     Speaking  of  "  the  oath"  he  took,  when  he  was 
ordained,  he  says,  "  The  true  sense  of  the  words  of  an  oath,  and 
the  mode  and  extent  of  its  obligation,  are  not  to  be  determined 
by  him  who  takes  it,  but  by   him  who   requires   it."     Moore"'s 
Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  1  p.  193.     (2)  Dr.  Coke  says,  "  nor  do   I 
think  that  the  repetition  of  the  imposition  of  hands  for  the  same 
office,  when  important  circumstances  require  it,  is  at  all  impro- 
per.''    Def  p.  90.  He  says  farther,  on  the  same  page,  "  I  am  of 
our  late  venerable  father  Mr.  Wesley's  opinion,  that  the  order 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  are  one  and  the  samey     If  Mr.  Wes- 
ley had  placed  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  Dr.  Coke  five  thous- 
and times,  he  could  not  have  raised  him,  by   that  ceremony,  to 
any  higher  order  than  a  presbyter  ;  tor  according  to  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Wesley's  doctrine,  a  bishop  and  presbyter  is  "  one  and 
the  same  "     (3)  It  was  nof  "  performed  as  ordinations  usually 
are  "     Because,  if  Dr.  Coke  was  ordained  at  all,  he  was  ordain- 
ed a  bishop  ;  a  bishop  and  a  superintendent,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  advocates  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  being  the  same  order. 
Not  to  repeat,  what  has  been  advanced  already,  upon  the  signi- 
fication of  these  terms,  and  their  respective  use  and  application 
by  ecclesiastical  writers,  I  think  Mr.  E.  cannot  produce  an    in- 
stance of  any  bishop  among  episcopalians  being  ordained  in  the 
same  manner  that  Dr.  Coke  was.     The  ceremony  was  perform- 
ed in  a  private  "chamber,"  by  Mr.  We-sley  and  another  presby- 
ter of  the  church  of  England,  and  by   Mr.  Whatcoat   and   Mr. 
Vasey,  who,  I  believe,  had  l)een  ordained  elders,  a  few  minutes 
previously,  in  the  same  "chamber."     And  yet  Mr.  ii.  has  the  te- 


54 

uiprity  to  flay,  Dr.  Coke's  ordination  "was  performed,  as  ordi- 
nafioris  usuaUy  are."  \ir.  E.  ought  to  luMnv,  that  accoidjn^  to 
the  nsage  of  the  churc  of  Enerland,  when  a  bishop  is  ordained^ 
Lis  ordination  is  not  performed  in  a  private  "  chamber  ;'''  nor  are 
there  umully  less  tlsan  three  bisliops  eni^atfed  in  the  perform- 
anre  of  the  ceremony.  Nor  was  this  ordination  "  performe;!  as 
ordinations  usuallj"  were  among  the  ancients.  For,  no  bishop, 
taking  the  word  as  synonymous  with  presbyter  as  it  respects 
order^  but  superior  as  it  respecis  office^  was 'inducted  into  (hat 
office,  unless  it  were,  by  the  sutt'rati^es  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  o£ 
that  particular  church,  of  which  he  was  to  have  the  immediate 
anf!  pastoral  care  Besides,  it  was  necessarv  to  have  "  the  con- 
current assent  of  the  neighbouring  bishops,  and  the  imposition  of 
tl  e  hands  of  al  least  three  bishops."  t>ee  Lord  King,  p.  46.7. 
So  that  Dr.  Coke's  ordination  was  not  performed  accordmg  to 
ei  ler  ancient  or  modern  usage. 

Mr.  E.  says  farther,  "  it  was  performed  by  the  imposition  of 
hnds  and  prayer"  And  suppose  it  was;  will  that  constiiu'p  it 
an  ordination  .''  The  reader  will  recollect  that  his  attention  vvas 
called  to  this  subj<>ct  in  a  former  part  of  this  work.  He  was 
told,  from  Mr  E's  own  authorities,  that  "imposition  of  liands 
does  not  confer  any  power  on  the  person  upon  whom  they  are 
laid  ;"  or  in  other  words,  that  imposition  ol'  hands  dues  not  con- 
stitute ordination.  If  the  imposition  of  hands  does  not  constitute 
ordination,  how  could  the  imposition  of  -r.  Wesley's  hands  up- 
on Dr.  Coke  constitute  ordination,  or  create  the  doctor  a  bishop  f 
And  if  Mr.  V\esle)'s  hands,  who  was  the  ordainer,  m  this  cer- 
emony, if  any  one  was,  did  not  constitute  it  an  ordination,  how 
could  the  handsofMr.  Creighton,  Mr,  Wliatcoat,  or  Mr.  Vasey 
make  it  an  ordination  ?  The  thing  is  absurd  ;  for  a  thousand 
noughts  will  not  make  an  unit. 

Nor  is  there  the  least  reason  for  considering  the  "setting 
apart"  of  Dr.  Coke,  an  ordination  :  no,  not  even  the  "  exigence 
of  necessity,"  which  Mr.  E.  says,  "  Mr.  W  esiey  assigned  as  one 
oi  the  grounds  of  his  proceeding."  Def  p.  25.  Surely  Mr.  E. 
does  not  understand  the  subject  upon  v\  hich  he  writes,  or  he 
confounds  things  which  ought  ^o  be  kept  separate.  Let  the 
reader  only  distinguish  between  these  two  things.  The  supplying 
tr.e  American  societies  with  ministers,  to  administer  the  oidi- 
nances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  and  the  supposed  cre- 
ation of  Dr.  Coke  a  bishop.  If  the  reader  will  distinguish  be- 
tween these  two  things,  all  that  Mr.  E.  has  said,  or  can  say  on 
the  subject  of  the  ordination  ol  the  doctor,  is  perfectly  nugatoiy. 
Surely  it  was  not  necessary  for  Mr.  W  esley  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke 
a  bishop  to  authorise  him  to  preach  the  gospel  in  America.  It 
w  as  not  necessary  to  ordain  him  a  bishop,  in  order  to  enable  him  to 
adm mister  the  ordinances  to  theMet hod ist  societies  in  this  couniiy. 
It  \-  as  not  necessarh  tooidain  hirp  a  bishop,  to  authorise  him  loor- 
dam  ministers  to  uuminister  baptism  auU  the  Lord's  supper  in  the 


55 

Uniterl  Statesi  The  two  rormer  the  doctor  had  done  in  Eng- 
land ;  and  the  latter  he  had  as  good  a  clerical  right  to  do,  as 
Mr.  Wesley  himself.  For  Mr.  Wesley  declared  that  bishops 
and  presbyters  are  equal,  and  consequently  have  the  sameright  to 
•ordain.  The  validity  of  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Whaicoat  and 
Mr.  Vasey  being  allowed,  on  the  ground  set  up  by  Mr.  Wesley 
as  a  justification  of  his  own  conduct,  namely  that  -presbyters  have 
a  rijfht  to  ordain  ;  these  three  gentlemen  could  certainly  oi^lain 
others,  without  supposing  one  of  them  to  be  a  third  order,  dis- 
tinct from  and  superior  to  presbyters  ;  and  thus  they  could  have 
supplied  the  societies  with  ministers.  The  only  dilFculty 
which  presented  itself  in  the  case,  grew  out  of  the  great  affec- 
tion which  the  American  societies  cherished  for  Mr.  Wesley  ; 
and  the  objections  they  had  to  receive  any  person,  whose  ap- 
pointment did  not  come  from  him,  as  "  the  father  of  the  whole 
Methodist  family."  To  overcome  this  difficulty,  and  to  induce 
them  to  receive  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Wesley  thought  proper  to"  set 
apart""  Dr.  Coke  as  a  superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of  his 
hands  and  prayer,  and  this  is  what  Mr.  E.  has  magnified  into  an 
*'  ordination"  of  a  bishop. 

To  put  this  matter  to  rest,  T  shall  offer  Mr.  Wesley's  opin- 
ion of  a  transaction  exactly  similar  in  all  its  parts.  I  allude  to 
that  which  is  recorded  in  Acts  XIII.  ch.  2,  3  verses.  "  As  they 
ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  tlie  Holy  Ghost  said,  sepa- 
rate me  Barnabas  and  Saul,  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  call- 
ed them.  And  when  they  bad  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  they  sent  them  away."  Now,  the  transaction  in 
Acts  so  much  resembles  the  one  under  consideiation,  that  neith- 
er Mr,  E.  nor  any  one  else  can  point  out  any  material  differ- 
ence. The  one  was  intended  for  a  special  purpose  ;  so  was  the 
other.  The  one  was  performed  "  hy  the  imposition  of  hands 
and  prayer  ;''''  so  was  the  otiier.  The  one  was  performed  by 
*'  ordained  ministers ;"  so  was  the  other.  The  one  "  icas  done 
under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God  ;"  so  was  the  other. 

Before  1  offer  Mr.  Wesley's  opinion,  I  shall  repeat  what  I 
said  in  my  History  and  Mystery  in  reply  to  Rev.  Mr.  Bansts's 
sentiments  on  this  passage.  This  Rev.  gentleman  in  his  "  Vindi- 
cation of  JNIethodist  episcopacy?'*  p.  42.  has  these  words  :  •'  But 

*  In  the  Methodist  Magazine  for  Septemb^^r,  1827,  p,  396;  Mr.  Bangs  says 
"how  cliaiiged  is  the  author  of  ihe  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy, from  wl'.ai  he  was  when  he  heard  read,  approved  and  recommend- 
ed for  publication,  at  the  Methodist  book  room,  the  "  Vindication  of  Meth- 
odist Episcopacy."  He  need-  not  attempt  to  deny  this  fact,  because  it 
stands  attested  by  his  own  signature,  as  secretary  of  tlie  book  committee." 
Ml  E  makes  pretty  much,  the  same  statement,  in  the  preface  to  his  book' 
Kaowiiig  these  statements  to  be  untrue,  I  wrote  to  a  friend  in  New  Vork, 
to  procure  me  a  copy  ot  the  records  of  tlie  book  committee  in  the  case. 
The  following  is  certified  to  be  a  true  copy 

"September  8,  1820. 

•'  Brother  Bangs,  this  day  closed  I'eading  beiore  the  commit'ee,  <»n  essax 
entitled  A  Viiuhcaiioii  of  Methodist  Episcopacy 


56 

says  the  objector,  have  presbyters  authority  to  constitute  a  mio- 
irter  superior  to  themselves  ?  Undoubtedly.  It  will  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  apostles  were  a  grade  of  ministers  superior  to 
the  elders  ;  and  yet  St.  Paul  was  ordained  by  a  body  ofeldeis." 
From  this  answer  we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  the  author 
of  the  Vindication  of  Methodist  episcopacy  thought  St.  Paul 
was  not  an  apostle  before  this  transaction  :  and  thlit  he  was  rais- 


1.  On  motion,it  was  resolved,  that  the  committee  approve  of  its  publication 

2.  Resolved  that  the  above  work  be  recommended  to  the  book  agents  tor 
publication. 

Aii;xAWDER  M  Caixe  " 
I  \¥ill  now  give  a  brief  history   of  this  affair,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection      When   Mr-  Bangs  first  mentioned  his  contemplated  work  to 
the    breihien   who  composed   the  book    committee,   1    understood  him  to 
mention  it    to  them,  not  in  their  official    capacity  as  the  book  committee; 
but  as  individuals,   of  whose  presence    he  said  he  w(;uld  avail  himself,  and 
upon  whose  judgement  be  could   rely.     Having  mentioned  it  just  as  they 
were  about  to  disperse;  I  had  no  knowledge,  that  Mr.  Bangs  had  previous- 
ly submitted   his  views  upon  this  subject,  to  Mr.  Soule,   his  predecessor  in 
the  book  room,  for  publication;  nor   was  the   slightest  intimation  given  of 
the  fact,  that  his  former  piece  had  been  rejectv-d      As  Mr.  Bangs  produced 
only  a  few  sheets  of  his  manuscript,  (say  three  or  four,)  1  thought  that  this 
was  the  first  time  he    had  w  ritten   any  thing  on   the  subject.     One  of  the 
brethren  upon  hearing  him  read  what  lie  had  produced,  observed,  he  could 
form  no  opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  work  from  a  few  sheets     He  teld  Mr. 
Bangs,  he  had  better  go  on  with  it,  and  when  he  had  finished  it,  he  could 
then  tell  hini  what  he  thought  of  it.  The  next  time  any  pori  ion  of  it  v'p.s  read, 
I  considered  the  matter  in  the  same  point  of  light;  and  consefjuently,  as  I  did 
not  suppose  that  it  was  submitted  to  the  committee,  in  their  official  caparA. 
iy,   or  tiiat  they   would  be  responsible  for  its   doctrines    1  did    not  make  a 
stern  opposition  to  many  things,  of  which  I  did  not  approve.     Ucvv  many 
times  Mr.  Bangs  read  portions  of  his  manuscript,  1    cannot  say      1  liave  no 
recollection  ot  being  present  more    than  twice   or  thrice.     Having  finished 
reading  his  paper  the  above  resolutions  were  then  submitted  to  the  commit' 
tee,  which  it  became  my  duty,  as  secretary,  to   record.     But  surely  it  will 
not  follow,  because  I  entered  them  on  the  book,  that  I  approved  of,  or  re= 
commended  the  work.     As  well  njight  Mr.  Bangs  say,  that  I    'recommend* 
ed"  tlie  resolutions  he  offered  at  the    general  conference  of  1820,  because 
I  was  secretary  to  that   body.     Or   that  Mr  Enior)    "  approved'    of  every 
thing  done  at  the   general  conference  of  1824.   because   he  was  sfcrrfar^  to 
that  conference.     I'he  fact    is;  Mr  Bangs  deceived  me  in  the  way  he  intro- 
duced his   work  to  the  brethren.     He  deceived  me  in  holding  back  the   in- 
y    formation,   that   this  work  had  been  rejected  by  Mr.  Soule,  his  predecessor: 
a,  circumstance  which  1  did  noi  know  for  years  afterw  ids.   H     dfceived  rr.e 
in    the  manner  in  which  he  obtained  a   vote  for  its  publication,  and  now  he 
sajs  1  "approved   and   recommended  it."     He   must  allow  me  to  tell  him 
this  IS   not  true.     He  also  says,  "this  is  not  mentioned  to  criminate  him  " 
For  what  other  purpose  is  it  mentioned.''     Notwithstanding  what  he  says,  I 
must  believe  that  Mr.   Bangs  did  mention    it  to   criminate    me.  and  for  no 
other   purjjose.     Keaily,   1  once  thought  Mr.  Bangs  was  above   such   dirty 
little  tricks  as  these;  but  I  find  I  have  been  mistaken  in  the  man      Perhaps 
he  wd!  next  say,  1  vot^dthat  he  siiould  tiave  the  hundred  dolia   s  whicli  h« 
received  from  Ins  colleague,   Fiiomas  Mason,  for  the  copy  right  of  "  a  Vin- 
dication  of  Methodist   Episcopacy.  ' !  I  !     In  my  conscience,  1    think,  he 
ought   to  return  ttiat  sum  to  the  book  room,  for  the  work,  for  which  he  ob. 
turned  it,  *ip-it    is   not   worth  a  dollar.  Help^  brethren,  help.     The /)re/?r»  of 
ti»c  book  room  jfo  to  the spread  of  the  Gospel. 


67 

td  to  be  an  apostle  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  those  p'O- 
plieta  and  teachers^  whom  he  c&Ws elders.  All  this,  however,  is  in 
flat  contradiction  to  what  St.  Paul  himself  tells  us.  He  says,  he 
was  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ 
and  God  the  Father.  Gal.  1  ch,  1  ver.  Dr.  McNight  in  his 
comment  on  the  text  says,  *"  St.  Paul  was  first  made  an  apostle 
by  Christ,  when  he  appeared  to  him  in  the  way  to  Damascus, 
Acts  iX.  1-5.  And  three  years  after  that,  his  apostolic  commis- 
sion was  renewed.  Acts  XXII  20.  So  that  he  was  first  sent  forth, 
reither  by  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  nor  by  that  at  Anticch. 
The  Holy  Ghost,  indeed,  ordered  the  phroplietsat  Antioch(Acts 
XI 1  J.  2)  to  separate  Paul  and  Barnabas;  but  it  was  to  the  work 
whereunto  he  had  called  them  formerly.  This  separation  was 
simply  a  recommending  them  to  the  grace  of  God  by  prayer. 
And  in  fact  it  is  so  termed.  Acts  XIV.  26  "  So  that  in  Dr. 
McNigHit  s  opinion,  the  •  setting  apart '  by  tiie  imposition  of 
hands  and  prayer  is  no  ordination,  but  simply  a  recommendingof 
those,  on  whom  they  were  placed  to  the  grace  of  God  by  pray- 
er.     Now  for  Mr.  Wesley's  opinion. 

•'I  believe  several  who  are  no\  episeopallyordaineih^reca]]- 
ed  ol"  God  to  preach  the  gospel.  Yet  I  have  no  objection  to  the 
twenty  third  article,  though  I  judge  there  are  exempt  cases." 

'■  That  the  seven  deacons  weie  outwardly  ordained, even  to 
that  low  office  cannot  be  denied.  But  when  St.  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas were  separated  for  the  work  to  which  they  were  called, 
this  was  not  ordaining  them.  St.  Paul  was  ordained  long  be- 
fore, and  that  not  of  man  nor  by  man.  It  was  only  inducting 
him  to  the  province  for  which  our  Lord  had  appointed  him  from 
the  beginning.  For  this  end,  the  prophets  and  teachers  fasted, 
prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  upon  them:  a  rite  which  was  used 
not  in  ordination  only,  but  in  blessing,  and  on  many  other  occa- 
sions.'''' Wesley's  works,  vol.  X.  p.  237.  See  also  his  Notes  on 
the  New  Testament  in  loc.  and  on  the  Acts  XIV.  26.  If  Mr.  E. 
should  exclaim  respecting  this  transaction,  as  he  has  done  re- 
specting the  'imposition"  of  Mr.  Wesley's  " /joju/s"  upon  Dr. 
Coke,  •'  if  it  was  not  an  ordination,  it  was  certainly  a  very  solemn 
mockery."  Def.  p.  24.  Mr.  Wesley  will  be  allowed  to  be  as 
competent  to  decide  upon  the  subject  as  Mr.  E.  is.  Had  Mr. 
Es  knowledge  been  greater,  or  his  pretensions  less,  he  "-certain- 
ly" would  not  have  declared,  that  "  if  the  imposition  of  hands, 
upon  Dr.  Coke,  was  not  an  ordination,  it  was  a  very  solemn 
mockery." 

— QfQO— 

Section  VI. — Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  Bishop  White. 

Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  Bishop  White  is  a  document  of  too  much 
importance,  a'nd  too  closely  connected  with  the  subject  under 


discussion,  not  to  have  a  place  in  this  work.  It  develops  the 
principles,  by  which  some  of  the  chief  actors  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  were  intluenced  : — it 
contains  concessions  and  acknowledgments,  which  no  minister 
of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  unconscious  of  having  done  wrong, 
ought  to  make  :  it  offers  proposals  which  no  bishop,  having  a 
proper  respect  for  the  dignity  of  his  episcopal  character,  and  a 
conviction  of  the  validity  of  his  ordination,  ougtit  to  offer  :  and 
it  stands,  and  will  forever  stand,  as  a  proof  of  the  jealousy  and 
rivalry  of  the  two  superintendents,  or  bisliops,  and  of  tlie  artifice 
and  intrigue  used  by  the  one,  to  gain  an  ascendency  over  the 
other. 

Tlie  following  is  a  copy  of  his  letter  attested  by  bishop  White. 
**  Right  Reverend  Sir : — 

Permit  me  to  intrude  a  little  on  your  time,  upon  a  subject  of 
great  importance. 

You,  1  believe,  are  conscious  that  I  was  brought  up  in  the 
church  of  England,  and  have  been  ordained  a  presbyter  of  that 
church.  For  many  years  I  was  prejudiced,  even  I  think,  to 
bigotry,  in  favor  of  it :  but  through  a  vaiiety  of  causes  and  inci- 
dents, to  mention  which  would  he  tedious  and  useless,  my  mind 
was  exceedingly  biassed  on  the  othei-  side  of  the  question.  In 
consequence  of  this,  I  am  not  sure  but  I  went  further  in  the 
separation  of  our  church  in  America,  than  Mr.  Wesley,  from 
whom  I  had  received  my  commission,  did  intend.  He  did  indeed 
solemnly  invest  me,  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do,  with  epis- 
copal authority,  hut  did  not  intend,  I  think,  that  our  entire  sepa- 
ration should  take  place.  He  being  pressed  by  our  friends  on 
this  side  the  water,  for  ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  to 
them  (there  being  very  few  clergy  of  the  church  of  England 
then  in  the  States)  he  went  farther^  I  am  snre,  than  he  would  have 
gone  if  he  had  foreseen  some  events  which  folloived.  And  this  I 
am  certain  of — that  he  is  now  sorry  for  the  scjiaration. 

But  what  can  be  done  for  a  re-union  which  I  wi^h  for;  and 
to  accomplish  which,  Mr.  Wesley,  I  have  no  doubt,  would  use 
his  influence  to  the  utmost  ?  The  affection  of  a  very  considera- 
ble number  of  the  preachers  and  most  of  the  people,  is  very 
strong  towards  him;  notwithstanding  the  excessive  ill  usage  he  re- 
ceived Jrom  a  few.  My  interest  also  is  not  small  ;  and  both  his 
and  mine  would  readily  and  to  the  utmost,  be  used  to  accomplish 
that  (to  us)  very  desirable  object :  if  a  readiness  were  shown  by 
the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  to  re-unite. 

It  is  even  to  your  church  an  object  of  great  importance.  We 
have  now  above  60,000  aduhs  in  our  society  in  these  States;  and 
about  250  travelling  ministers  and  preachers  ;  besides  a  great 
number  of  local  preachers,  very  far  exceeding  the  number  of 
travelling  preachers  ;  and  some  of  these  local  preachers  are  men 
of  very  considerable  abilities  ;  but  if  we  number  the  Metliodists 


59 

as  most  people  number  the  members  of  their  church,  viz.— by 
the  families  which  constantly  attend  the  divine  ordinances  in 
their  places  of  worship,  they  will  make  a  larger  body  tlian  you 
possibly  conceive.  The  society,  I  believe,  may  be  safely  mul- 
tiplied by  five  on  an  average,  to  give  us  our  slated  congregations  ; 
which  will  then  amount  to  oOO,000.  And  if,  the  calculation, 
which,  I  think  some  eminent  writers  have  made,  be  just,  (hat 
three-fifths  of  mankind  are  un-adult(if  1  may  use  the  expression) 
at  any  given  period,  it  will  follow  that  all  the  families,  the  adults 
of  which  form  our  congr-egations  in  these  states,  amount  to 
750,000.     About  one-fifth  of  these  are  blacks. 

The  work  now  extends  in  length  irom  Boston  to  the  South  of 
Georgia  ;  and  in  breadth,  from  the  Atlantic  to  lake  Champlain, 
Vermont,  Albany,  Redstone,  Holstein,  Kentucky,  Cumber- 
land, &c. 

But  there  are  many  hindrances  in  the  way.  Can  they  be  re- 
moved ? 

1.  Our  ordained  ministers  will  not,  ought  not,  to  give  up  their 
right  of  administering  the  sacraments.  I  don't  think  that  the 
generality  of  them,  perhaps  none  of  them,  would  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  a  re  ordination,  if  other  hindrances  were  removed  out  of 
the  way.  I  must  here  observe,  that  between  60  and  70  only,  out 
of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  have  been  ordained  presbyters,  and 
about  60  deacons  (only.)  The  presbyters  are  the  choicest  of  the 
whole. 

2.  The  other  preachers  would  hardly  submit  to  re-union,  if 
the  possibility  of  their  rising  up  to  oixlination  depended  on  the 
pi-esent  bishops  in  America.  Because,  though  they  are  all,  I 
think  I  may  say,  zealous,  pious  and  very  useful  men,  yet  they 
are  not  acquainted  with  the  learned  languages.  Besides,  they 
would  argue,  if  the  present  bishops  would  waive  the  article  ol 
the  learoe'd  languages,  yet  their  successors  might  not. 

My  desire  of  a  re-union  is  so  sincere  and  earnest,  that  these  dif- 
ficulties make  me  tremble  :  and  yel  something  must,  be  donebefore 
the  death  of  JMr.  fVesley,  otherwise  I  shall  despair  oj  sticcess:  for 
though  my  influence  among  the  Methodists  in  these  states  as  well 
as  in""  Europe,  is,  1  doubt  not,  increasing,  yet  J/r.  .tisbury  whose 
influence  is  very  capital,  will  not  easily  comply,  nay,  I  know  he  will 
he  exceedingly  averse  to  it. 

In  Europe  whei'e  some  steps  had  been  taken,  tending  to  a 
separation,  all  is  at  an  end.  Mr.  Wesley  is  a  determhied  enemy  of 
it,  and  1  have  lately  borne  an  open  and  successful  testimony 
against  it. 

Shall  1  be  favoured  with  a  private  interview  with  you  in 
Philadelphia  ?  I  shall  be  there,  God  willing,  on  Tuesday  the 
17th  of  May.  If  this  be  agreeable,  I'll  beg  of  you  just  to  signify 
it  in  a  note  directed  to  me  at  Mr.  Jacob  Baker's,  merchant, 
Market  street,  Philadelphia:  or  if  you  please  by  a  h\v  lines 


aenfc  me  by  the  return  of  the  post,  at  Philip  Rogers's  Esq.  in  Bal- 
timore, from  yourself  or  Dr.  Magavv:  and  I  will  wait  upon  yoa 
with  my  friend  Dr.  Magaw.  We  can  then  enlarge  on  the  sub- 
jects. 

I  am  conscious  of  it  that  secrecy  is  of  great  importance  in  the 
present  state  of  the  business,  till  the  minds  of  you,  your  brother 
bishops  and  Mr.  Wesley  be  circumstantially  known,  I  must 
therefore  beg  that  these  things  be  confined  to  yourself  and  Dr. 
Magavv,  till  I  have  the  honor  of  seeing  you. 

Thus  you  see  that  I  have  made  a  bold  venture  on  your  honor 
and  candour,  and  have  opened  my  whole  heart  to  you  on  the 
subject  as  far  as  the  extent  of  a  small  letter  will  allow  me.  If 
you  put  equal  confidence  in  me,  you  will  find  me  candid  and 
faithful. 

I  have,  notwithstanding,  beenguilty  of  inadvertencies.  Very 
lately  I  found  myself  obliged  (for  the  pacifying  of  my  conscience) 
to  write  a  penitential  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jarrat,  which  gave 
him  great  satisfaction  :  and  for  the  same  reason  I  must  write 
another  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pettigrew. 

When  I  was  last  in  America,  I  prepared  and  corrected  a 
grf^at  variety  of  things  for  our  magazine,  indeed  almost  every 
thing  that  was  printed,  except  some  loose  hints  which  I  had 
taken  of  one  of  my  journeys,  and  which  1  left  in  my  hurry  with 
Mr.  Asbury,  without  any  correction,  entreating  him  that  no  part 
of  them  might  be  printed  which  could  be  improper  or  offensive. 
But'hrough  great  inadvertency  (I  suppose)  he  suffered  some  re- 
flections on  the  characters  of  the  two  above  mentioned  gentle- 
men to  be  inserted  in  the  magazine,  for  which  I  am  very  sorry  : 
and  probably  shall  not  rest  till  I  have  made  my  acknowledg- 
ments more  public  ;  though  Mr.  Jarrat  does  not  desire  it. 

I  am  not  sure,  whether  I  have  not  also  offended  you,  sir,  by  ac- 
cepting one  of  the  offers  made  me  by  you  and  Dr.  Magaw  of  the 
use  of  your  churches,  about  six  years  ago,  on  my  first  visit  to 
Philadelphia,  without  informing  you  of  our  plan  of  separation 
from  the  Church  of  England.  If  I  did  offend,  fas  I  doubt  I 
did,  especially  from  what  you  said  to  Mr.  Richard  Dallam  of 
Abingdon  ]  I  sincerely  beg  yours  and  Dr.  Magaw's  pardon, 
ril  endeavor  to  amend.  But  alas  !  I  am  a  frail,  weak 
creature. 

1  will  intrude  no  longer  at  present.  One  thing  only  I  will 
claim  from  your  candour — that  if  you  have  no  thought  of  im- 
proving this  proposal,  you  will  burn  this  letter,  and  take  no 
more  notice  of  it,  (for  it  would  be  a  pity  to  have  us  entirely 
alienated  from  each  other,  if  we  cannot  unite  in  .the  manner  my 
ardent  wishes  des  re)  but  if  you  will  further  negocltate  the  busi- 
ness, I  will  explain  my  mind  still  more  fully  to  you  on  the  proba- 
bilities of  success. 


In  the  mean  time,  permit  me,  with  great  respect,  to  sub- 
scribe myself,  Right  Reverend   Sir, 

Your  very  humble  servant  in  Christ, 

[Signed]  THOMAS  COKE. 

The  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God, 
Bishop   White. 
Richmond,  t^pril  24th,  1791. 

P.  S.  You  must  excuse  interlineations,  &c.  I  am  just  going 
into  the  country  and  have  no  time  to  transcribe.'* 

Upon  this  letter,  I  shall  now  make  a  few  remarks.  1.  Dr. 
Coke  informs  bishop  White,  "that  he  had  been  brought  up  in 
the  chui-ch  of  England  ;  had  been  ordained  a  presbyter  in  that 
church  ;  and,  for  many  years,  had  been  prejudiced,  even  to 
biiTOtry,  in  favor  of  it."  2.  He  acknowledges  that  a  great 
change  had  taken  place  in  his  views,  and  says,  "  that  through  a 
yai  leiy  of  causes  and  incidents,  which  it  would  be  useless  to 
mention,  my  mind  was  exceedingly  biassed  on  the  other  side  of 
the  question."  3.  Whilst  in  this  state,  he  adds,  '■'- 1  xcent  furlher 
in  the  separation  of  our  church  in  Jlmerica,  than  JMr.  fVesleyy 
from  uhom  I  had  received  my  commission,  did  intend.  4.  Having 
mentioned  his  "■  commission,'^  he  enlarges  on  that  topic  and  adds, 
"  Mr.  Wesley  did  indeed  solemnly  invest  me  with  episcopal 
authority,  as  far  as  he  had  a  I'tght  so  to  do." 

Respecting  this  most  extraordinary  investiture  with  episco- 
pal authority,  I  shall  remark,  (1.)  That  the  reader  can  find 
nothing  like  this  account,  in  any  ecclesiastical  writer.  No  man 
claiming  episcopal  authority,  ever,  before,  expressed  himselt  in 
this  manner  {2)  Notwithstanding  all  Mr.  E's  confident  asser- 
tions respecting  Dr.  Coke's  "  having  no  doubt,  not  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt,"  of  the  validity  of  his  ordination  as  a  bishop,  it  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  the  doctor  does  not  say  one  word,  about  V 
his  being  ordained  a  bishop.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  just  surprise, 
that  he  should  carefully  avoid  mentioning  his  being  ordained  a 
bishop,  provided  he  knew,  that  he  had  been  ordained  one.  Hi» 
backwardness  to  use  the  term  "  ordained,"  and  his  substituting 
the  novel,  and  periphrastical  mode  of  expression,  "  he  did  in- 
deed solemnly  invest  me  with  episcopal  authority,'"  is  proof  to 
my  mind,  thai  the  doctor  could  not  say  he  was  ordained  a  bish- 
op ;  nor  use  the  same  unequivocal  language  that  he  did,  when 
speaking  of  his  being  *■'  ordained  a  presbyter"  in  the  church  of 
England.  (3)  As  he  had  been  called  a  bishop  so  long  ;  as  he 
had  been  accessary  to  the  organization  of  the  societies  into  an 
episcopal  church  ;  as  he  had  with  Mr.  Asbuiy  his  colleague,  as- 
sumed the  title  of  bishop,  he  seems  to  have  wished,  if  possible^ 
to  retain  the  title,  and  yet  he  decline*  saying  he  was  ordained  a 
bishop.  For,  when  writing  to  one,  who  was  himself  a  bishop, 
in  'he  common  acceptation  of  that  term  ;  who  had  been  consii- 
tuted  a  bishop,  according  to  ecclesiastical  usage  :  who  was  ac- 


6a 

sjuainted  with  the  duties  of  the  office,  the  meaning  of  tlie  term, 
and  the  manner  in  which  a  bishop  is  ordained.  Dr.  ('oke  ex- 
presses himself  in  a  manner  that  is  truly  surprising  Truth  udl 
not  allow  him  to  say  he  was  ordained  a  bishop,  and  yet  he  says, 
he  was  "  invested  with  episcopal  authority.""  Never  was  any 
man  placed  in  a  more  awkward  position,  by  the  pen  of  his  ad- 
versary, than  Dr.  Coke  is  placed  in  by  his  own  pen.  Nor  is 
this  all.  For  (4)  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  is  not  a  whit 
behind  the  former  in  absurdity  •,  and  this  absurdity  is  atteni()ted 
to  be  placed  to  Mr.  \Vesley"'s  account,  by  "  his  zealous  son  in 
the  gospel."  Hear  the  doctor  again.  "  Mr.  Wesley  did  in- 
deed solemnly  invest  me  with  episcopal  authority,  as  far  as  he 
had  a  right  so  to  doV  Much  might  be  said  on  the  phrase,  "  as 
far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do  ;"  but  I  shall  only  make  one  or 
two  remarks.  I.  Mr.  Wesley  had  a  right  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke  a 
bishop,  or  he  had  not.  If  he  had  this  right,  why  does  the  doc- 
tor express  himself  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  this  right  ques- 
tionable ?  If  he  had  this  right;  there  was  no  need  of  the  restric- 
tive phrase,"  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do."  2.  But,  if  Mr.  Wes- 
ley had  not  this  right,  why,  in  the  name  of  common  sense  does 
the  doctor  say,  "  he  did  invest  me  with  episcopal  authority." 
To  common  readers  the  whole  matter  must  be  glaringly  absurd  ; 
in  what  light  then,  must  the  atiair  have  appeared  to  the  gentle- 
man to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed  .''  Bishop  White  knew 
what  was  the  voice  of  ecclesiastical  history,  respecting  the  of- 
fice of  a  bishop,  tlie  meaning  of  the  term,  tfie  equality  of  the  or- 
der, in  "  office  and  povvef,"  and  the  established  manner  of  ordain- 
ing one.  Dr.  Coke  knew,  or  ought  to  have  known  these  things 
as  well  as  bishop  White.  Ecclesiastical  writers  had  asserted, 
"  that  wherever  a  bishop  be,  whether  at  Rome,  or  at  Kugubium, 
at  Constantinoj)!e  or  at  Rhegium,  at  Alexandria,  or  at  Thanis  ; 
he  is  of  the  same  worth  and  of  the  same  priesthood  :  the  force 
of  wealth  or  lowness  of  poverty  doth  not  render  a  bishop  more 
high  or  more  low.  That  one  bishop  might  e>ceed  anotiier  in 
splendor,  in  wealth,  in  reputation,  in  extent  of  jurisdiction,  as 
one  king  may  surpass  another  in  amplitude  of  territory  ;  but  as 
all  kings,  so  all  bishops  are  equal  in  office  and  essentials  of  pow- 
er." And  yet  with  a  knowledge  of  these  facts,  he  uses  the  re- 
strictive phrase  "  as  far  as  he  had  a  right  so  to  do.''"'  1 1 

The  doctor,  who  candidly  states  that  he  "  went  farther  in  the 
separaiion  than  Mr.  Wesley  iutended,"  thereby  confessing  that 
he  iiad  not  conformed  to  the  instructions  he  had  received,  but 
had  violated  injunctions  most  solemnly  imposed,  now  attempts 
to  throw  a  little  of  the  blame  upon  Mr.  Wesley  himself.  "  Mr. 
Wesley  did  not  intend  that  our  entire,  separation  (from  the 
church)  should  take  place  ;  he  went  farther,  than  he  would 
have  gone,  .i'  he  hod  foreseen  some  events  which  followed.''  It 
BOW  remains  to  be  ascertained  what  those  steps  were,  which  Mr. 


63 

Wesley  harl  taken,  calculated  to  produce  a  separation,  and  vvhick 
he  would  not  have  lakt  n,  if  he  had  foreseen  the  events  which 
followed.     And  what  could  tliese  steps  have  been,  but  the  or- 
daining of  ministers  for  the  American  Methodists.     This  circum- 
stance made  them  independent  of  the  clergy  of  other  denomina- 
tions, ibr  ordination  and  the  oi  dinances.     In  consequence  ol  this, 
the  Aietliodist  preachers  felt  tleir  independence,and  as  a  prooi  of 
it,  their  first  act   was  to  form  themselves   into  an  independent 
church.     Mr.  Wesley,   too,  was  soon  ntade  to  Jec/,  that  tliey 
were  perfectly  independent  ol  him  also,  and  that  they  cared  for 
him,  no  more,  than  they  did  for  any  other  person.     The  first 
time  he  interfered   in   their   business,  by  merely  advising,  that 
Mr.  Whatcoal  might  be  appointed  joint  superintendent  with  Mr. 
Asbury,  they  were  otiended  at  his  interlerence,  and  discarded 
him  and  his  authority  at  a  stroke,  by  leaving  his  name  otl  their 
minutes.     Well  mi^ht  Dr.  Coke  say,  this  was  "  excessive  ill 
usage  ;"  but  tor  the  honor  of  the  conference,  oniy  "a  few"  had 
any  thing  to  do  in  it.     Still,  it  is  highly  probable,  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley would  not  have  ordained  ministers  tor  the  American  socie- 
ties, if  he  had  thought,  that  almost  one  of  their  tirsl  acis  would 
have  been  to  treat  himself  in  this  manner.     JNotvvithsianding  all 
the  palliating  glosses  of  Mr.  E.  their  treatment  of  Mr.  Wesley 
will  find  no  apolos^ists  or  admirers,  in  men  of  honorable  mmas. 
The  doctor  farther  tells  bishop  White,  that  he  is  "certain  Mr. 
Wesley  is  sorry  for  the  separation."     If  Air.  Wesley  was  sorry 
for  the  scj*  ation,  was  he  not  also  sorry  for  having  taken  the 
steps  that   led  to  it?     Was  he  not  sorry   lor  having  ordained 
ministers  for  America?     That  he  was  sorry  for  having  oruamed 
some  of  his   preachers  for  Great   Britain,  we  have  liev.   Air. 
Creighton's  testimony  :  and  it  he  was  sorry  for  having  ordained 
a  few  of  them,  tor  Great  Britain,  how  much  greater  reason  had 
he  to  be  sorry  lor  haviiig  ordained  preachers  for  America  ?     In 
reply   to  Mr.  Bradburn,  Mr.  Creighton  says,  "I  must  take  the 
liberty  positively  to  contradict  you. — He  did  repent  of  it"  (or- 
daining them)  "aiid  with  tears  in  his  eyes  expressed  his  sorrow 
both  in  public  and  private."     Again  he  says,  "  He  likewise  ex- 
piessed  his  sorrow  respecting  tliis  matter  at  Leeds  conference, 
in  1789,  and  occasionally  afterwards  in  London  until  his  death." 
p.   13. 

Having  made  these  statements  and  concessions,  the  doctor 
next  expresses  hisu'ish  for  a  re-union  with  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  ;  and  says,  "  both  Air.  v,  esley's  interest  and  mine 
would  readily,  and  to  the  utmost,  be  used  to  accomplish  iliat 
(to  us)  very  desirable  object."  He,  moreover,  presses  the  subject 
upon  the  bishop,  from  the  consideration  that  Air.  Wesley  could 
not  be  expected  to  live  much  longer.  "  Something  must  be  done 
before  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesle},  otherwise  1  shall  despair  of 
success."     But  where  is  Mr.  Asbury  all  this  time  ?    Jrias  he 


64 

laothing  to  do  with  the  Methodist  societies,  oris  be  not  Cdnsidet* 
ed  vvortfiy  to  be  consulted  in  such  important  matters  ?  Ths 
doctor,  it  is  true,  does  mention  his  name  in  the  letter,  but  not 
with  approbation,  or  as  being  likely  to  concur  in  the  measure. 
For  although,  the  doctor  says,  "tliat  he  doubted  not  but  his  in- 
fluence among  the  Methodists  in  these  sr.ates  is  increasing;  yet 
J^/r.  Asbury  whose  influence  is  very  capital,  udll  not  easily  comply, 
nay,  I  know  he  will  be  exceedingly  averse  to  iL"  Well  might  tiie 
doctor  say  so  ;  for  Mr.  Asbury  would  have  no  rival,  much  less  a 
superior.  He  acted  out  the  sentiments  expressed  to  Mr.  Shad- 
ford,  "  Mr.  Wesley  and  I  are  like  Caesar  and  Pompey.  He  will 
bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no  superior."  However,  take  it 
on  the  whole,  and  it  exhibits  a  pretty  specimen  ot  brotherly  af- 
fection! A  delightful  example  of  mutual  conhdence  and  co-opera- 
tion between  the  two  Methodist  bishops!  "  Interest"  opposed  to 
"  interest."  "  Influence"  working  against  "  influence  ;"  the  one 
striving  to  counteract  and  undermine  the  other.  Weil  may  some 
in  the  LVlethodist  episcopal  church  be  ashamed  of  such  conduct. 
Well  may  they  say,  that  "  such  things  are  calculated  to  disgrace 
and  bring  reproach  upon  its  ministers  and  members."  But  jii  the 
name  of  Heaven  am  1  answerable  for  this  ?  Am  I  the  author  of 
this  letter.!*  Did  1  forge  it?  Did  not  Dr.  Coke  write  it.^  Whj 
then  expel  me  the  church  for  republishing  it  ^  It  was  surely 
worse  to  write  it,  than  to  publish  it ;  and  yet,  the  very  men,  who 
preferred  the  charges  against  me,  for  which  I  have  been  ex-com- 
municated, pretend  to  defend  the  doctor's  conduct  in  applauding 
the  ''Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  and  heartily  approve  of  my  ex- 
pulsion !  ! 

The  doctor,  in  the  exposition  of  liis  plan,  adds,  "lam  consci- 
ous of  it,  that  secrecy  is  of  great  importance  in  the  present 
state  of  the  business,  till  the  minds  of  you,  your  brother  bishops, 
and  Mr.  Wesley  be  circumstantially  known:  I  must  therefore  beg 
that  these  things  be  confined  to  yourself  and  Dr.  Vlagaw  till  I 
have  the  honor  of  seeing  you.  One  thing  only  1  will  claim 
from  your  candor,  that  if  you  have  no  thoughts  of  improving 
this  proposal,  you  will  burn  this  letter."  N.  »w  what  would  anj 
man,  who  was  associated  with  another  in  mercantile  pursuits, 
think  of  his  partner,  if  that  partner  were  to  conduct  himself  to- 
wards him,  as  Dr.  Coke  did  towards  Mr,  Asbury.-*  ^^ Burn  this 
letter''^  would  be  sufficient  to  excite  indignation  in  the  brea.st  of 
any  man.  But  instead  of  contemplating  these  gentlemen  as  men  of 
the  world,  bound  to  each  other,  only  by  the  ties  of  interest  and 
honor,  they  must  be  contemplated  in  a  much  higher  point  of  view, 
as  joint  superintendents  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  church. 
They  are  to  be  regarded  as  bishops  or  overseers  of  a  part  of  the 
flock  of  Christ,  and  ostensibly  labouring,  murually  and  atfeciion- 
ately,  to  [)roniote  its  weliare.  Standing  in  this  relation  to  one 
unother,  they  travel  together  for  several  days,  after  the  letter 


65 

was  written  :  they  converse  together,  pray  together,  preach  to- 
gether, eat  ant!  sleep  together,  and  the  one  has  not  confulence  ia 
hi?  colleague  to  say  one  word  to  him  about  the  re-union!!  Is 
there  any  thing  to  surpass  this  in  the  history  of  the  Popes  ?  How 
must  Mr.  Asbury  have  felt  when  he  received,  opened, and  read 
bishop  While's  answer  to  the  doctor's  letter,  which  tell  into  his 
hands  ?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  was  thunder- 
struck with  surprise;  and  indignant  at  such  conduct  ?  That  he 
was  ready  to  cry  out  treachery,  deception,  intrigue  and  a  thou- 
sand things  besides  ?  Nor  is  it  strange,  that  in  a  letter  vviitten 
subsequently,  and  now  lying  before  me,  he  should  say  ''1  cannot 
confide  in  ecclesiasticks  passing  through  the  degrees,  and  intri- 
gues of  a  university,  as  I  can  trust  a  ploughman." 

A  personal  interview  had  been  proposed  with  bishop  White, 
upon  Dr.  Coke's  arrival  in  Philadelphia.  This  interview^  accord- 
ingly took  place;  at  which  the  parties,  Dr.  Coke,  bishop  White 
and  Dr.  Magaw  enlarged  on  the  subjects  mentioned  in  the  letter. 
"The  general  outlines  of  Dr  Coke's  plan"  says  bishop  White, 
"were  a  re-ordination  of  the  melhodist  ministers,  their  continuing 
under  the  superintendence,  then  existing,  and  the  consecration 
ofhimseltand  the  gentleman  connected  with  him.''  But  says 
Mr  E.  "bishop  WJiiie  mistook  the  import  ot  Dr.  Coke's  letter," 
Def.  p.  30.  Although  bishop  White  could  not  understand  it,  it 
will  be  recollected,  that  \8r.  E.  can  !  I  This  assertion  if  takeu 
in  connexion  with  another,  on  the  same  page,  in  the  Defence  of 
our  Fathers,  is  only  a  genteel  way  of  setting  aside  bishop  White's 
testimony  as  utterly  unworthy  of  credit.  "This  suggestion" 
(respecting  consecration)  "as  far  as  we  can  discover,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  Dr.  Coke's  letter"  ib.  And  wih  Mr.  E.  say,  that  be- 
cause this  "suggestion"  is  not  found  in  Dr.  Coke's  letter,  there- 
fore it  was  not  made  in  the  conversations  which  took  place  at 
the  personal  interview.  Mr.  E.  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  such  in- 
sinuations, against  such  a  man  as  bishop  White.  And  is  it  possi- 
ble, that  Mr.  E  could  have  the  vanity  to  think,  that  his  asser- 
tion would  be  believed,  namely,  that  a  man  of  bishop  White's 
acknowledged  acuteness  of  perception,  talents,  age,  standing  in 
the  literary  world,  and  high  station  in  the  church,  could  not  un- 
derstand Dr.  Coke's  letter  ^  The  fact  is,  any  man  can  understand 
it;  for  it  is  so  plain,  it  can  not  be  misunderstood.  But  this  is  not 
the  first  time  bishop  White  lias  received  rude  treatment  from 
this  pragmatical  writer,  who  inflated  with  his  own  liiile  acquire- 
ments, seems  to  think,  that  nobody  can  understand  the  most  sim- 
ple proposition,  or  tell  how  many  two  and  two  make,  but  him- 
self. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  E's  dexterity  in  the  management  of  do- 
cuments, this  letter  sadly  perplexes  him.     He  can  neither  bend 
it,  nor  break  it ;  he  must  therefore  dispose  ot  it  in  the  best  man- 
ner he  can.     He  atlects  to  represent  the  doctor's  application  for 
3 


66 

coiiJipcrafiou,  as  a  mere  trifle,  by  comparing*  his  ofier,  with  the 
conduct  of  "some  Metliodist  presbyters,  who  have  joined  other 
churches.'''  "It  is  well  known",  says  he,  "that  some  methodist 
presbyteis,  who  have  joined  other  churches,  have  submitted  to 
a  second  ordination,  not  for  their  own  satisfaction,  but  for  the  sa- 
tisfaction of  others,  and  because  it  was  required  of  them  in  order 
to  the  union  "  Def.  p.  29.  First.  Is  not  tins  declaration  contrary 
to  the  universal  sense  of  mankind?  According  to  Mr.E's  doctrine, 
when  a  beggar  asks  an  alms,  it  is  not  "for  his  own  satisfaction,'* 
but  for  the  ."satisfaction  of  the  giver,  that  he  asks  it  !  When  aa 
applicant  solicits  a  favor,  it  is  not  "for  his  own  satisfaction,'* 
he  solicits  it,  but  for  the  satisfaction  of  his  benefactor  !  Whea 
a  man  wishes  to  become  a  member  of  a  religious  society,  it  is 
not  "for  his  own  satisfaction,"  that  he  wishes  to  join  it,  but  for 
the  satisfaction  of  the  church  !  According  to  this  position,  it  is 
the  party  applying, who  confers  the  favor,  and  not  the  party  bes- 
toiving  it  And  yet  the  book  containing  such  nonsense  is  pronoun- 
ced "  a  masterly  and  unanswerable  production.'*  Second.  Did 
not  the  churches  which  these  "Methodist  presbyters"  joined,  de- 
ny the  validity  of  their  ordination,  as  "Methodist  presbyters,'' 
by  requiring  them  to  submit  to  a  second  ordination  .''  They  did. 
And  if  Dr.  Coke's  offer  had  been  accepted,  and  if  he  had  been 
"consecrated"  by  the  bishops  of  the  Trotestant  Episcopal 
church,  this  circumstance  would  have  been  considered,  by  every 
church  in  the  United  States,  a  renunciation  of  what  has  been 
called,  his  episcopal  ordination.  But  Mr.  E.  says,  "It  is  well 
known''  &c.  To  whom  }  I  have  known  the  Methodist  episco- 
pal church  for  37  years ;  and  I  know  it  as  well,  and  better,  than 
Mr.  E.  does,  and  1  never  knew  it  to  allow  such  a  plea  as  he 
states.  So  far  from  it,  that  I  have  known  some  "Methodist  presby- 
ters, w^ho  left  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  and  joined  other 
churches,"  and  I  have  always  heard  one  of  two  things  assigned 
as  a  reason  for  their  submitting  to  a  second  ordination,  namely 
the  invalidity  of  thcr  ordination,  or  the  prospect  oHmproving 
their  temporal  circumstances.  Now,  although  some  one  of  these 
"Methodist  presbyters"  may  say,  it  "was  not  for  his  own  satis- 
faction'' that  he  submitted  to  a  "second  ordination,"  his  apology 
has  not  been  admitted  l)y  the  ministers  or  members  of  the  JNIe- 
thodist  episcopal  church.  This  would  be  to  acknowledge  the 
invalidity  of  Methodist  ord'nation,  which  would  be  a  kind  of  ec- 
clesiastical suicide  or  felode-se.  The  Methodists,  therefore,  have, 
in  every  instance,  that  i  have  known  or  heard  ot',  attributed  sub- 
mitting to  a  second  ordination  to  a  love  of  gain.  And  has  Mr.  E. 
in  his  "masterly  defence"  placed  Dr.  Coke  in  tliis  predicament? 
Does  he  really  think,  that  the  doctor  was  that  venal.,  sordid  soul 
that  his  readers  are  left  to  infer  he  was,  by  representing  his  ap- 
plication to  bishop  White,  as  "a  case  analagous"  to  the  above.** 
Does  Mr.  E.  attribute  his  proposals  to  the  love  of  pe//,  rather 


07 

than  admit  that  the  doctor  did  not  believe  he  was  a  bishop  ? 
Mr.  E.  nnay  clioose  either  horn  of  tlie  dilemma.  In  the  mean- 
time, I  shall  close  this  paragraph  nith  a  sentence  from  his  own 
book.  "The  propensity  of  the  human  mind  to  conjecture  what  is 
>  most  accordant  with  its  own  hnbits  of  thinkings  or  what  is  best 
calculated  to  support  its  own  views  is  too  well  known,  to  re- 
quire discussion  here."  Def  p.  SO. 

Were  Mr.  E.  a  fair  and  honourable  controvertist  ;  and  were 
his  sole  object,  truth,  he  never  would  allow  himself  to  practise 
what  he  condemns  in  ofliers  With  the  rules  of  controversy,  he 
is  presumed  to  be  too  well  acquainted,  not  to  know,  that  conjec- 
ture is  not  argument ;  and  that  specious  phantasies  are  very  dif- 
ferent fiom  logical  deductions.  But  keepinjj  these  deductions 
out  of  sight,  he  ahounds  in  "conjectures"  upon  the  subject  of 
this  letter ;  thereby  "demonstrating"  how  hard  run  he  is  for  ar- 
gument, and  liow  difhcult  it  is  for  him  to  dispose  of  it,  with  any 
degree  of  plausibility,  to  please  himself  A  Jm  instances  shall 
gerve  as  a  specimen  o^  his  logical  precision.  "Dr.  Coke  might 
not  have  considered  it  wrong."  "Bishop  Wliite  tniglit  have 
misapprehended  a  hint.''  "It  must  be  admitted  to  be  possible^ 
that  he  viighl^  at  leasts  equally.'^''  "Bishop  White  was  conjectur- 
t/J^-."  "Dr.  Coke  had  probably  contemplated."  "It  was  con* 
jedural.  As  such  we  leave  it."  "Bishop  V\  bite  mah  have  been 
correct^  '•'■It  ma?/ easily  be  accounted  for  \\\\ho\i\.  supposing-'^'' 
"  Dr.  Coke  might  have  thought  it.^''  "We  conjecture,  ij  Dr.  Coke 
did."  "Bishop  White  mistook.''^  And,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  the 
reader  will  acknowledge,  he  never  saw  such  a  sample  of  con- 
jectures, in  the  same  space,  in  any  book  before.  No  wonder 
it  has  been  pronounced  by  the  seven  wise  men  as  "unanswera- 
ble;" for  it  is  so  full  of  nonsense,  conjecture,  and  contradiction 
tliat  no  man  can  tell  what  to  answer. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  Mr.  E.  through  those  aii-y  regions 
of  conjecture,  whither  he  allowed  himself  to  be  carried  by  his 
fancy,  or  his  cunning  :  but  shall  turn  to  an  other  subject — the 
subject  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  which  is  closely  connected  with 
the  writing  of  this  letter.  Mr.  E  says,  "the  fact  is,  that  Mr. 
W'esley  at  the  time"  (of  writing  this  letter)  "was  dead."  Def. 
p.  32.  For  what  purpose  does  Mr.  E.  aver  this  fact  ?  To  re- 
fute a  statement  made  by  Dr.  Wyaft  of  Baltimore  in  a  sermon 
which  he  published, .that  Dr.  Coke's  proposal  to  bishop  White, 
"was  made  with  the  approbation,  if  not  direction  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley." Not  so,  says  Mr.  E.  tliat  could  not  be,  for  "Mr.  Wesley 
at  the  time  was  dead."  Dr.  Coke,  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  let- , 
ter  to  bishop  White,  knew,  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  dead,  or  he 
did  not.  If  lie  did  know  it,  Mr.  E's  assertion  is  a  pitiful  equivo- 
cation, and  does  not  disprove,  what  Dr.  Wyatt  said  :  for  surely 
Mr.  ^\esley  might  have  given  his  approbation  to  these  propo- 
sals before  he  died;  though  1  am  very  far  from  supposing  he  di<^. 


68 

But  \f  Mr.  Wesley's  death  was  known  to  Dr.  Coke,  before  he 

wrote  this  letter,  as  Mr.  E  s  phraseoloi^y  would  lead  a  person 
to  suppose  it  was,  then  Mr.  E.  has  fixed  a  stain  ot  the  deepest 
die,  on  the  character  of  Dr  Coke,  wh  eh  neither  he,  no:  all  he 
can  call  to  his  assistance,  can  ever  wipe  away.  For,  although 
the  doctor,  according  to  Mr.  E's  statement,  is  supposed  to  know 
of  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  yet  he  says,  "to  accomplish  which, 
Mr.  Wesley.  I  have  no  douht,  would  use  his  influence  to  the  ut- 
most." Again,  "something  must  be  done  before  the  death  of  Mr, 
Wesley." 

To  clear  up  this  matter,  and  to  do  justice  to  Dr.  Coke,  I  turn- 
ed to  Drew's  life  of  Coke,  and  found  the  following  account. 
*'Dr  Coke,"  says  Mr.  Drew,  "had  been  preaching  on  th--  even- 
ing of  the  20th  of  April,  at  a  place,  called  Port  Royal,  in  Virgi- 
nia, and  had  ensealed  to  preach,  about  twelve  miles  distant,  at 
ten  o'clock  on  the  ensuing  morning.  But  on  returning  after  the 
evening  preaching,  to  the  house  of  a  merchant  where  he  was  to 
lodge,  he  was  informed  by  him,  that  the  Pliiladelpliiaii  papers 
had  just  announced  to  the  public,  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley  As- 
tonished at  this  intelligence,  and  unwilling  to  credit  what  he  hop- 
ed might  be  false,  he  requested  the  gentleman  to  procure  tor 
him,  a  sight  of  the  paper.  This  was  soon  done:  and  on  pe- 
rusing the  paragraph,  he  was  convinced,  from  the  manner  of  its 
being  written,  that  the  unexpected  tidings  were  mournfully 
true. . . .  The  next  morning  he  set  off  for  Nevv-lork. .  .  On  his 
arrival  at  Alexandria,  he  received  a  leiter  from  home,  coiitirni- 
inirthe  truth  of  what  the  papers  had  circulated...  He  reached 
Baltimore  by  Sunday  the  1st  of  May,  and  preached,  in  the  even- 
ing, to  a  crowded  audience,  on  the  mournful  occasion.'  Drew's 
Life  of  Coke,  p.  231. 

Here  every  thing  is  plain,  clear,  and  circumstantial.  But 
what  bearing,  it  may  be  a^ked,  has  this  account  upon  Dr.  Coke's 
letter  to  bishop  White  .-*  It  has  this  :  allowing  Mr.  Drew  to  be 
correct  in  his  date,  it  will  prove,  that  Dr.  Coke  knew  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  death,  before  he  wrote  his  letter  to  bishop  White. 
According  to  the  above  account,  the  news  of  Mr.  W'esley's 
death  reached  the  doctor  on  the  20th,  and  he  wrote  his  letter  on 
the  24th  of  the  same  month. 

But  Mr.  Drew  is  not  correct.  And  in  proof  of  it  1  offer  the 
following  testimony.  Mr.  Asbury  says  :  "Thursday  28  (April.) 
We  hasted  to  Port  Royal,  where  a  number  of  tine  people  were 
waiting,  to  whom  the  doctor  preached  on  "Ye  are  dead,  and 
your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God  " 

"Friday  29.  The  solemn  news  reached  our  ears  that  the 
public  papers  had  announced  the  death  ol  that  dear  man  of  God, 

John    Wesley...  Dr.   Coke,    accompanied   by    biother  C 

and  Dr.  G set  out  for  Baltimore,   in  order  to  get  the  most 

speedy  passage  to  England,  leaving  me  to  fill  the  appointments. 


6» 

Next  day  T  ovftrtook  Dr.  Coke  and  his  company  at  Colchester. 
At  MexaiKlria  Dr  Coke  had  certain  iiil'ormati!. no:  Mr  V^  e^iey's 
death.  On  Sabbath  day  he  reached  Baltimore,  and  preached 
Oiwhe  occasion  of  Mr  Wesley's  death;  and  mentioned  some 
.  thinu^s  which  gave  otlence."'**  Asbury's  Journal,  Vol.  2.  pp.  99. 
100. 

I  have  searched  xhe  newspapers  of  that  year,  preserved  in  the 
Baltimore  Library,  and  find  the  acconnt  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death, 
taken  from  a  Liverpool  paper  of  March  3d.  1791,  and  copied  in- 
to the  "Gazette  of  the  United  Statec,  of  Saturday,  April  23. 
1791  published  by  John  Fenno,  No.  69.  High- Street,  Philadel- 
phia,'' in  the  following  words.  John  Wesley.  On  Tuesday 
evening,  died  of  a  gradual  decay,  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  in  tlie 
8blii  year  of  his  age"  &c.  The  same  account  may  be  found  in 
the  Maryland  .lournal  and  Baltimore  Advertiser,  under  date  of 
April  26th  1791. 

Having  ascertained  Mr  Drew's  account  to  be  incorrect,  there 
wf're  a  few  things  concerning  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  connect- 
ed with  this  letter,  on  which  I  was  anxious  to  obtain  informa- 
tion; and  which  I  was  certain  I  could  obtain  from  no  other  quar- 
ter, but  from  bishop  White  himself.  1,  accordingly,  waited  on 
this  gentleman,  last  May,  when  I  was  in  Philadeluhia,  and  staied 
to  him  the  object  of  my  visit.  The  bishop  received  me  with  the 
greatest  politeness,  and  answered  my  questions  with  the  greatest 
promptness.  The  points  respecting  which  I  made  inquiry 
were  these.  First.  Did  he  believe,  that  Dr.  Coke  knew  of  th« 
death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  when  he  wrote  his  letter  of  April  21th. 
Second.  W^as  there  any  mention  made,  of  the  death  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, at  the  interview  which  took  place  between  Dr.  Coke,  bishop 
White,  and  Dr.  Magaw  .''  Third.  Bishop  White  having  stated, 
thai  mention  was  made  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  I  then  asked,  did 
Dr.  Coke  withdraw,  or  propose  to  withdraw  the  proposals  for  a 
re-union  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  which  he  had 
made  in  his  letter;  and  to  etfect  which,  he  "had  no  doubt,"  he 
said,  "Mr.  Wesley  would  use  his  influence  to  the  utmost"  .-'  On 
these  points  the  bishop  was  explicit  and  full.  But  on  my  return 
to  Baltimore,  it  occurred  to  me,  that  it  would  be  best,  for  seve- 
ral reasons,  to  have  the  bishop's  answers  to  my  questions,  in 
writing.  I  therefore  addressed  him  a  letter,  dated  the  1st  of  Au- 
gust, and  received  the  following  answer  on  tlie  5tn  of  the  same 
mouth.  How  unlike  the  conduct  of  the  Methodist  bishops,  to 
whom  I  addressed  my  circular,dated  "Baltimore  July  1st,  1826,'^ 
and  from  whom,  I  have  not  received  a  single  line,  or  word  in 
answer  to  the  present  time. 

*  When  Ir  Coke  publishc-d  this  sermon,  he  omitted  every  things  that  hvi, 
yiven  offence  when  it  was  delivereet. 


10 

Revd.  Sir.  Philad.  August  4th,  1 828. 

I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  1st  inst.  In  answer  to  which 
I  have  to  inform  you  that  you  do  not  seem  to  have  misunder- 
stood my  answers  to  the  questions  proposed  by  you  to  me  per- 
sonally in  our  interview. 

When  Dr.  Coke  addressed  to  me  the  letter  to  which  you  re- 
fer, he  could  not  have  known  of  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley,  which 
was  an  event  of  too  signal  a  character,  not  to  be  discours'^d  of, 
immediately  on  the  arrival  of  the  tidings  of  it,  I  am  persuaded, 
there  was  no  knowledge  of  it  in  Philadelphia,  when  I  wrote  nijj 
answer  to  the  aforesaid  letter.  Dr.  Coke  was  informed  of  it,  be- 
tween the  date  of  his  letter  and  the  arrival  of  mine.  All  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  induce  on  my  mind  the  persuasion,  that 
on  the  receipt  of  the  information,  he  hastened  to  Philadelphia 
with  the  view  of  a  return  to  England.  Tliis  caused  delay  of  his 
receipt  of  my  letter;  which  had  not  come  to  hand,  when  he  left 
Baltimore. 

In  the  conversations — for  there  were  two — with  Dr.  Coke,  in 
the  presence  of  Dr.  Magaw,  there  was  certainly  refei-ence  to  the 
decease  of  Mr.  Wesley,  to  what  effect,  I  do  not  recollect,  altho' 
I  am  persuaded  it  had  no  bearing  on  the  purpose  of  the  visits  of 
Dr.  Coke.  That  gentleman  did  not  intimate  any  intention  of 
withdrawing  the  proposals,  contained  in  his  letter;  and  I  was 
left  at  full  liberty  to  communicate  to  our  convention. 

I  am  respectfully,  Revd.  sir,  your  very  humble  servant 

Wm  White. 
From  Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  bishop  White,  I  draw  the  follow- 
ing inferences. 

1.  That  the  doctor  did  not  consult,  either  the  travelling  or  lo- 
cal preachers  of  the  church,  or  even  Mr.  Asbury,his  colleague, 
before  he  proposed  to  be  reunited  with  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church;  but  of  his  own  accord,  otfered  to  dispose  of  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church,  with  as  little  ceremony,  as  a  Rus- 
sian nobleman  would  offer  to  dispose  of  the  peasantry  upon  his 
estate,  as  lord  of  the  soil. 

2.  That  as  he  made  these  proposals,  without  the  knowledge 
of  either  ministers  or  members  of  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  he  may  have  disregarded  the  instructions  he  received 
from  Mr.  Wesley,  by  organizing  the  societies  in  America,  into  an 
independent  Methodist  episcopal  church.  If  he  thought  it  best  to 
do  the  one,  he  may  have  thought  it  best  to  do  the  other.  And  if 
he  acted  secretly  in  the  former  instance,  he  may  have  acted  so  in 
the  latter. 

3.  That  Dr.  Coke  was  not  satisfied  with  what  has  been  called 
his  episcopal  ordination;  and  that  he  did  not  believe  he  had  been 
constituted  a  bishop,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  that  term, 
when  he  was  ''set  apart"  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  the  office  ©fa  super- 
intendent. 


4.  That,  with  intention  to  be  constituted  a  bishop,  he  applied 
to  bishop  White  for  consecration;  and  to  induce  the  bishop  the 
more  readily  to  comply  with  his  wishes,  he  proposed  a  re-union 
with  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church,  which  union,  he  thought, 
ou^ht  to  be  an  object  with  that  church. 

5.  That  there  was  not  a  good  understanding  between  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury,  such  as  ought  to  exist  between  two  Christian 
superintendents  belonging  to  the  same  church.  That  the  former 
was  jealous  of  the  popidarity  or  power  of  the  latter;  and  with  a 
view  oflessening  theone,  or  weakening  the  other,  he  proposed 
to  he  re- united  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church.  Could  he 
effect  this  union,  and  obtain  consecration  in  it  as  a  bishop  he 
knew  with  all  bishop-admiring  people,  he  would  gain  such  an 
ascendency  over  his  rival,  as  he  could  not  hope  to  obtain  in  any 
other  way. 

6.  That  Mr.  Wesley  had  been  made  acquainted  with  every 
th'ng  that  had  taken  place  in  America  ;  and  that  so  far  from  ex- 
pressing his  approbation  of  the  measures  which  had  been  adopt- 
ed, he  was  "-sorry  for  the  separation,''''  and  for  the  steps  he  had 
taken,  by  which  that  "separation"  had  been  facilitated. 

— Q©©— 

Section  YU.—  Tke  Prayer  Book  of  1784. 

Whoever  has  read  my  "History  and  Mystery,"  will  recollect, 
that  in  that  work,  I  inserted  a  copy  of  the  letter,  which  I  ad- 
dressed to  each  of  the  five  bishops  of  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  soliciting  information  from  them,  whether  they  had 
"ever  seen  any  document  or  letter  written  by  Mr.  Wesley,  in 
which  he  explicitly  recommended  to  the  Methodist  societies  in 
America,  the  adoption  of  the  episcopal  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment, according  to  the  statements  made  in  the  minutes  of  confer- 
ence for  1785."  The  same  inquiry  was  made  in  the  letter 
which  I  addressed  to  each  of  six  of  the  oldest  preachers  in  the 
connexion.  In  the  same  work,  page  68,  I  say,  "there  exists  not 
in  the  range  of  our  research,  any  paper,  letter,  or  document  to 
prove,  that  Mr.  Wesley  ever  intended  to  constifute  Dr.  Coke  or 
Mr.  Asbury  a  bishop  :  or  that  he  ever  "recommended,"  or  gave 
"counsel,"  that  the  societies  should  adopt  the  episcopal  mode  of 
church  government,  "in  preference  to  any  other."  I  say  farther, 
on  the  same  page,  "It  may  now  be  reasonably  expected,  that 
every  member  of  the  church  will  look  for  the  establishment  of 
the  assertion,  by  clear  and  indubitable  evidences,  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley "recommended"  the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government 
to  the  American  Methodists. 

Having  made  this  demand  for  proof  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  re- 
Commend  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government,  it  surely 


12 

might  have  been  expected,  that  such  proof  would  have  been 
produced;  or  that  a  candid  and  honest  acknowledgment,  of  the  non- 
existence of  such  a  document,  would  have  been  avowed  To  any  o- 
ther  man  than  Mr.  E.  there  was  no  other  course  left;  but  his 
fertile  imagination,  hit  upon  an  expedient,  never,  I  presume, 
thought  of,  by  any  one  before:  such  an  expedient,  that  \{  morals 
were  not  too  deeply  involved,  would  produce  a  smile.  In  the 
preface  to  the  prayer  book,  Mr.  Wesley  said,  "this  edition 
of  it  i  recommend  toihe  societies  in  America''  Mr.  E.  findiiig 
the  word  recommend  in  it,  seizes  upon  that  term,  as  being  likely 
to  help  his  cause,  and  offers  this,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  recommenda- 
tion of  the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government.  Hear  what 
he  says,  "now  does  it  comport  with  good  sense  to  say,  Mr 
Wesley  recommended  the  form  and  not  the  thing  which  that 
form  imports.''  And  will  any  intelligent  man  pronounce,  that  ihat 
thing  is  not  an  episcopal  order  of  ministers,  and  an  episcojiacy 
in  fact,  by  whatever  names  they  may  have  been  called.''  This 
point  is  so  plain,  that  we  are  really  ashamed  to  dwell  on  it." 
Def.  p  40. 

On  this  sentence,  I  shall  remark.  1.  I  admire  modesty  in 
whomsoever  it  may  be  found;  but  feel  no  greater  predilection 
for  mock  modesty,  than  I  do  for  "  voluntary  humility."  They 
are  both  equally  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  the  Gospel,  and  are 
never  assumed  but  for  some  secret,  improper  purpose  or  de- 
sign. 1  regret,  therefore,  that  in  this  instance,  Mr.  E's  bash- 
fulness  became  so  excessive,  as  to  have  prevented  him  trom 
dwelling  a  little  longer  on  this  point.  The  abrupt  manner  in 
which  he  dropped  a  subject  so  plain,  is  proof,  tliat  there  was 
a  move  cogent  reason  than  bashfulness,  for  not  saying  more  on 
it  than  he  has  done;  the  reader,  therefore,  will  consider  what 
he  says,  as  only  a  flourish,  or  an  effort  to  get  rid  of  a  knotty 
and  difficult  matter.  2.  I  called  for  "  clear  and  indubitahle 
evidence,"  to  support  the  assertion,  that  Mr  Wesley  recom- 
m(-nded  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government,  apd  lo?  Mr. 
Wesley's  recommendation  of  a  pi  aver  book  is  produced.  3. 
This  has  a  strong  resemhiance  of  the  confusion  of  tongues, 
which  prevailed  at  the  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel.  When 
one  called  for  brick,  another  brought  him  mortar:  "  So  did 
God  conlound  their  language,  that  they  did  not  understand  one 
another's  speech."  4.  It  may,  now,  be  taken  (or  granted,  that 
there  never  was  any  document,  paper  or  letter  in  which  Mr. 
Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment. Had  there  been  such  a  document,  Mr.  E.  would  have 
produced  it:  and  not  have  rested  the  assertion  .under  considera- 
tion, on  a  kind  of  proof,  which,  if  it  were  true,  is  only  inferen- 
•  tial-  S-  ^^T^-  E.  has  blended  an  "  episcopal  order  of  ministers,'* 
and  "  an  episcopacy  in  fact,"  in  the  same  sentence  with  what 
jt     calls  Mr.  Wesley's  recommendation  of  an  episcopal  form  of 


government;  it  will  be  proper,  therefore,  in  this  section,  to  re- 
view the  iormer  as  well  as  the  latter.  6  He  as«jerts  thai  the 
"  episcopal  order  of  ministers"  in  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  ''  is  the  same  as  exists  in  the  church  of  England;"  be- 
cause the  prayer  book  was  abridged  h}  Mr.  Wesley,  and  be- 
cause "our  bishops  are  ordained  with  the  same  solemnities, 
and  for  tiie  same  purpose,  viz.  to  preside  over  the  tlock  of 
Christ,  including  the  prtsbylers  and  deacons^  and  to  ordain 
others."  Del\  p.  40.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  after  this,  we  shall 
hear  no  more  of  the  futile  distinction  between  "•  office"  and  "  or- 
der;'' and  that  we  sliall  never  be  told  again,  the  term  "  bishop," 
as  used  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  cliuroh,  is  only  the  name  of 
an  "office;"  unless  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  the  term  "  bish- 
op,'' in  the  church  of  Enlgand,  is  only  the  name  of  an  "  oifice," 
and  does  not,  in  that  church,  signify  a  distinct  ''^  order''^  from 
presbyters;  a  thing  which  Mr.  E.  cannot  prove. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  I  return  to  tl>e  very  pith  of  the 
controversy,  namely,  whether  bishops  in  the  Methodist  episco- 
pal church,  are  a  third  order  of  ministers,  distinct  from  presby- 
ters and  superior  to  them,  or  whether  they  are  of  the  same  or- 
der. And  here  I  think  it  proper  to  state  explicitly,  that  "di- 
vine right"  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  settling  of  tiiis  question; 
it  enters  not  into  the  discussion  at  all.  i  make  this  declaration, 
that  Mr.  E.  may  not  again  attempt  to  evade  the  question,  and 
slip  off  under  the  cover  of  "divine  right."  The  inquiry  re- 
gards the  parity  of  bishops  and  presbyters;  are  they  equal  ia 
ordei,  or  are  they  not.-*  Upon  this  point,  I  am  sorry  to  be  ob- 
liged to  say  it.  there  is  a  great  deal  of  shutlimg  prevarication, 
palpable  contra<liction,  and  gross  deception  among  those  who 
would  uphold  Methodist  episcopacy.  Some  say  that  they  be- 
lieve there  are  but  tico  orders  of  ministers  in  the  churcii  of 
Christ,  presbyters  and  deacons:  and  yet  they  represent  Meth- 
odist bishops,  as  bishops  in  the  "  common  acceptation''  of  that 
term.  Others  say,  that  when  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke, 
he  ordained  him  to  an  "  office"  but  this  ordination  did  not  con- 
stitute him  of  adiflerent  and  distinct  "oidcr"  from  what  he  was 
before  his  ordination;  that  the  "office,"  to  which  he  was  or- 
dained, was  that  of  a  superintendent,  and  that  superintendent  and 
bishop  are  synonymous  terms.  Others  say,  (Dat  "  bishops,  el- 
ders, or  presbyters  in  the  apostolical  writings,  were  one  and 
the  same  order  of  men,"  and  yet  there  was  "  a  third  order  in  the 
church,  called  evangelists,"  and  that  our  bishops  "  very  much  re- 
semblt*  those  "  evangelists."  Others  say,  "  our  bishops"  are 
"  bishops  in/ac<;"  although  passing  originally  under  the  less  im- 
posing name  of  sujjeriniendents;  and  "our  episcopacy"  is  an 
"episcopacy  in  Jirfc/,"  by  whatever  name  it  may  be  called. 
And  lest  any  mistake  should  occur,  in  apjjreneiiding  their  mean- 
ing, they  tell  us,  Metiiodist  bis!iO])s  are  such  bisiiops  as  arc  in  the 


74 

church  of  England;  ^'Ihey  have  been  ordained  in  the  same  mari- 
ner,  with  the  same  solemnities,  and  for  the  same  purposes." 

In  proof,  that  bishops  in  the  Melhodist  episcopal  church,  are 
the  same  order  that   bishops    in  the  church   of  England    are, 
the  abridged  prayer  book  is  adduced;  which,  Mr.  Essays,  con- 
tains "  the  forms  for  ordaining.of  superintendents,   elders,  and 
deacons,    which  forms  are   precisely  similar  to  those  used  by 
the  church  of  England,  and  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
in  this  country."  Def.  p.  38.     That   the   argument,  intend'd  to 
be  founded  on   the  insertion  of  these  "forms,''  in  the  abridged 
prayer  book,  may  have  all  the  force  desired,  the  ministers  of  Uie 
Methodist  episcopal  church,  ordained  under  these  forms,  must 
be  respectively  and  precisely  of  the  same  order,   as  those  in 
"  the  church  of  England,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
in  this  country,"  with   which    they  are  collated.     Deacons  in 
the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  must  be  contemplated  of  the 
same  order   as  deacons  in  the  "  church  of  England,''  and  in 
"the  Prottstant  Episcopal  church  in  this  country."     Methodist 
elders   of    the    same   order    as    Protestant   presbyters.      And 
Methodist  superintendents  of  the  same  order  as  Protestant  bish- 
ops.    But  is  this  the  case.?     Does  the  church  of  England  or  any 
of  her  bishops,  consider  a  Methodist  superintendent  of  the  same 
order  as  a  bishop  in  that  ctuirch?     Does  the  "Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  in  this  country,"  or  any  of  its  bishops,  consider  a 
Methodist  superintendent  of  the  same  order  as  a  bishop  in  that 
church.?     No:  they  do   not.     Why?     Because  bishops  in  these 
churches,  are  considered  as  a  third  order  of  ministers,   distinct 
from  and  superior  to  presbyters.     Did  Mr.  Wesley,  by  insert- 
ing the  "  form"  for  the  ordination  of  a  superintendent,  intend 
thereby  to  make  such  superintendent,  a  minister  of  the  third  or- 
der?    He  did  not.     Why?  Because  he  believed  there  are  but 
tico  orders;  "  bishops  and  presbyters  being  of  the  same  ordcr^ 
The  argument  intended  to  be  drawn,  in  favor  of  Methodist  epis- 
copacy, from  the  "forms"  being  inserted  in  the  prayer  book, 
abridged   by  Mr.  Wesley,  is  according  to  the  judgment  of"  the 
church  of  England,   the   Protestant  Episcopal   church    in   this 
country,"'  and  Mr.   Wesley  himself,  good  for  nothing,  the  as- 
sertion of  Mr.  E.  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

In  order  farther,  to  prove,  that  Mr  V^esley  recommended  the 
episcopal  mode  of  government,  Mr.  E.  labours  much  to 
shew  that  by  recommending  the  "liturgy,"  Mr.  Wesley  recom- 
mended the  "forms  and  manner  of  ordaining  superintendents,  el- 
ders and  deacons."  But  unfortunately  for  Mr.  E.  Mr.  Wesley  keeps 
apart,  what  Mr.  E.  would  join  together.  In  recommending  the 
liturgy,  ne  is  very  particular;  whilst  he  is  totally  silent  res- 
pecting these  "  forms."  Mr.  E.  tells  us,  he  takes  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  "liturgy'*  and  "common  prayer,"  in  a  "compre- 
hensive sense,"  as  embracing  the  forms  for  ordaining  superin- 


75 

tendents,  &c.  as  well  as  the  Sunday  service  and  psalms."  But 
does  Mr.  Wesley  tell  us  so,  or  does  he  take  it  in  that  spn>*e? 
There  is  no  evidence  that  he  does.  For,  ahhou<2;fi  he  advises 
the  use  of  the  "  liturgy  on  the  Lord's  day  in  all  the  congre- 
gations," he  does  not  say  one  word  about  those  "forms,"  uor 
•about  an  episcopal  form  of  government.  That  Mr.  E  is  "  mis- 
taken" in  representing  Mr.  Wesley's  recommendation  of  'he 
"liturgy,"  as  a  recommendation  of  the  episcopal  mode  of 
church  government  is  very  evident.  And  in  proof  of  his  mis- 
take, I  argue,  that  if  the  conference  of  1784  had  considered  it  in 
that  light,  they  certainly  would  not  have  expunged  from  Mr. 
Wesley's  letter  of  Sep.  10,  1784,  that  part  of  it,  u  hich  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  E's  argument,  was  the  only  plausible  pretext  for 
adopting  the  episcopal  mode  of  government.  But  they  did 
mutilate  that  letter,  by  expungin.y;  from  the  original,  that,  part 
which  relates  to  the  "liturgy."  I  find  a  perfect  copy  of  this 
letter,  in  the  British  minutes  of  conference  tor  I78d;  and  the 
words  which  have  been  expunged,  ought  to  follow  the  words 
*'  Lord's  supper,''  in  the  4th  paragraph  of  the  letter  printed  in 
the  American  minutes.  The  expunged  words  are  these:  "And 
I  have  prepared  a  lilurgy,  little  differing  from  that  of  the 
church  of  England  (I  think  the  best  constituted  national  church 
in  the  world)  which  I  advise  all  the  travelling  preacheis  to  use 
on  the  Lord's  day,  in  all  the  congregations,  reading  the  litany 
on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  and  praying  extempore  on  all 
other  days." 

Now,  will  Mr,  E.  Dr.  Bond,  or  any  one  else,  have  the  hard- 
ihood to  say,  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  wiite  this  sente.ice.'' 
That  it  is  not  published  in  the  British  minutes  for  1785,  as  a 
part  of  the  original  letter?  Why  then  was  it  omitted  in  the 
American  minutes.''  VVhy  was  this  letter  mutilated?  V\  as 
it  because  it  was  supposed,  that  if  published  entire,  it  would 
militate  against  Methodist  episcopacy?  According  to  Mr.  E's 
shewing,  it  would  have  operated  wonderfully  in  its  favor. 
What  a  pity  that  the  whole  conference  was  '•'- mistaken.^''  As 
for  my  part,  I  know  not  what  they  supposed,  what  they  said,  or 
what  reason  they  assigned  for  leaving  it  out  of  their  minutes; 
nor  do  I  even  know,  when,  or  by  whom  if  was  done.  But  this 
one  thing  1  know;  that  the  suppression  of  the  letter  given  to 
Dr.  Coke,  when  he  was  "  set  apart  as  a  superintendent,"  which 
letter,  Mr.  E.  says,,  was  a  constituent  part  of  the  "  sketch"  pre- 
pared for  the  societies,  by  Mr.  Wesley. — The  mutilation  of 
this  letter,  and  the  alteration  of  the  minutes  of  conference; 
which  alteration  shall  be  al)undantly  established  in  the  setjuej, 
prove  to  my  mind,  that  there  has  been  great  unfairness  prac- 
ticed, in  the  organization  of  the  church;  and  that  Methodist 
episcopacy  W'as  "  surreptitiously"  introduced.  I  want  no 
stronger   evideHce  of    this  fact,    than  these   things  fuiiiish. 


76 

The  recommendation  of  the  prayer  book,  beina:  ^^e  only 
evidence  that  Mr  E.  has  attempted  to  produce,  in  proof  of  the 
assertion,  tiiat  Mr  Wesley  recommended  tlie  episcopal  mode 
of  government,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  show,  that  when  Mi.  Wes- 
ley recommended  the  use  of  the  "liturg}'''  or  "commom  pray- 
er," he  did  not  recommend  the  episcopal  form  of  church  go- 
vernment. Mr,  E.  says  he  did,  1  assert  he  did  not ;  and  as- 
sign the  following  reasons. 

1.  Because  such  a  recommendation  would  have  been  decep- 
tions. There  are  now  400,000  members  in  the  Methodist  epis- 
copal church,  very  few  of  whom  ever  heard  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
prayer  book  until  lately.  Now,  let  any  one,  who  never  heard  of 
such  a  prayer  book,  read  what  is  said  respecting  Mr.  Wesley's 
recommending  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  and  what  o- 
pinioii  would  he  form,  from  that  statement.^  He  certainly  would 
conclude,  that  Mv.  Wesley  did  recommend  it  to  some  person  or 
otliei-;  that  he  did  write  some  letter,  or  document,  in  which  he 
praised  such  a  form  of  government,  and  advised  its  adopiion. 
This,  I  am  coitident,  is  the  way  in  which  the  term  '■'■  recommend''^ 
would  be  understood;  and  no  man  would  think  of  looking  for 
such  a  reconunendation,  in  a  prayer  book  of  which  he  never 
heard,  no  more  than  he  would  think  of  looking  for  it,  in  an  old 
Almanack. 

2.  Because  such  a  recommendation  would  have  been  novel.  If 
Mr.W  esle}  intended  to  recommend  the  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment, when  he  only  recommended  the  use  of  the  "  liturgy,"  or 
"  common  prayer,"  then  he  has  departed  from  his  usual  way  of 
expressing  himself  A  similar  instance  cannot  be  found,  in  all 
his  voluminous  writings,  of  his  recommending  one  thing  by 
name,  when  he  intended  to  recommend  another  thing  not  named. 
\\  hy  then,  should  he  be  made  to  depart,  in  this  single  mstance, 
from  his  usual  method,  and  not  from  his  only,  but  from  the  me- 
thod ot  eveiy  correct  writer,  and  every  honest  man?  I  challenge 
Mr.  E.  to  produce  from  the  British  classics,  such  another  in- 
stance of  absurd  recommendation,  as  he  attributes  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley: nor  can  he  find  any  writer  on"  ethics"  or  moral  philosophy, 
who  will  justify  such  a  procedure. 

3.  If  Mr.  Wesley  recommesided  the  episcopal  form  of  go- 
vernment, th<.,  according  to  Mr.  E's.  slatem'  nt,  he  did  it  only 
iuutrectty  ;  ior  he  oiily  recommended  the  '■''Jonn''''  not  the  "  things'''' 
the  shadow;  not  \he  substance.  With  as  much  truth  might  Mr. 
E.  say,  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  form  ol'  go- 
vei  innent,  when  he  recommended  doctor  Coke,  as  say,  he  recom- 
mended that  form  of  government,  when  he  recommended  the 
use  of  the  "  liturgy." 

4.  Because  no  document,  paper,  or  letter  can  be  produced  in 
proof  tiiat  Mr.  Wesley  ever  wrote  the  words,  "episcopal  form 
of  government,"  with  reference  to  the  American  Methodistu. 


7T 

There  never  was  a  document  in  which  he  reeommended  it ;  no, 
nor  one  in  whictijie  ever  expressed  \\\<  a|»()iDl)aiioii  ul"  ii,  after 
it  had  been  ado|)ted.  Let  tlie  reader  mark  Mr.  E's  disiiii^enuous- 
ness  on  this  point.  He  sa's  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  a  cerlalu  letter, 
Vajid  it  does  not  contain  one  syllable  of  censure  or  disapproba- 
tion." Def.  p.  72  In  another  place,  he  says,  '"Dr.  Coke  dedicat- 
ed his  Journals  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  where  is  the  evidence,  that 
he  ever  remonstrated  against  this,  or  expressed  the  slightest  dis- 
pleasure of  it  "  Def.  p.  59.  And  where,  I  say,  'Ms  the  sli,^htest 
evidence"  that  Mr.  Wesley  ever  recommended  this  form  of  go- 
vernment, or  expressed  his  approbation  of  it .''  There  is  not  the 
slightest  particle  whatever.  The  proof  of  the  recommendation 
lies  on  Mr.  E.  as  the  title  to  an  estate  is  to  be  produced  by  the 
party  claiming  it. 

5.  If,  by  recommending  the  use  of  the  "liturgy",  Mr.  Wesley 
recommended  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  then,  according 
to  Mr.  E's  reasoning,  he  recommended  such  a  form  of  episcopal 
government  as  exists  in  the  church  of  England;  in  which  there 
are  three  separate  and  distinct  oiders  of  ministers,  bishops,  pies- 
byters,  and  deacons.  Had  Mr.  Wesley  done  this,  he  would  have 
flatly  contradicted  what  he  himself  said  in  his  letter,  drawn 
wp  the  day  after  the  date  of  his  preface  to  the  prayer  book. 
"Lord  King's  account  of  the  primitive  church  convinced  me  ma- 
ny years  ago,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order.'''' 
If  Mr.  Wesley  could  have  been  so  inconsistent,  if  he  couid  mus 
have  contradicted  himself,  one  day  assertmg  tliere  were  but  two 
orders,  and  the  next  day  affirming  there  were  three,  liis  authority, 
instead  of  being  received,  ought  to  have  been  totally  rejected. 

6  According  to  Mr.  E's  shewing,  if  Mr.  Wesley  recommend- 
ed the  episcopal  form  of  government,  he  recommended  such  an 
episcopacy  as  exists  in  the  church  ofEngland.  In  that  case,  he 
recommended  diocesan  episcopacy;  for  bishops  in  the  church 
of  England  are  diocesan  bishops.  Tliis  he  substantially  denies 
in  a  note  inserted  in  the  British  minutes  of  conference  lor  I78j. 
"Ii  any  one  is  minded  to  dispute  concerning  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, he  may  dispute.  I  have  better  work."  A  very  appropriate 
answer  to  all  that  Mr.  E.  has  said,  or  can  say,  respecting  Mr. 
Wesley's  silence,  in  not  expressing  his  displeasure  more  luily, 
at  the  formation  of  the  Methodist  societies,  into  an  independent 
episcopal  church,  and  all  their  subsequent  proceedings;  he  had 
^'better  work"  to  do,  than  be  "disputing"  with  men  who  had 
violated  Ids  instructions;  assumed  a  title,  which,  iu  the  most  so- 
lemn manner,  he  had  forbidden  them  to  assume;  and  had  acted 
towards  him  in  such  a  way,  by  leaving  his  name  oil'  their  minutes, 
"that  from  the  time  he  was  informed  of  it,  he  began  to  hang 
down  his  head,  and  to  think  he  had  lived  long  enough." 

7.  If  Methodist  bishops  are  of  the  same  order  as  bishops  in 
{he  church  ofEngland,  it  was  unnecessary  for  Dr.  Coke  to  ap- 


7S 

ply  to  the  bishop  of  London  in  1799,  to  ordain,  Giily  "a  few^'^  of 
the  preachers,  in  the  British  connexion.  What  necessity  was 
there  to  apply  to  his  lordship  to  ordain  only  a  few,  if  he  himself 
was  a  bishop.  The  application  stands  as  a  clear  proof,  that 
notwithstanding  all  Mr.  £.  has  said  respectiig  Dr.  Coke  having 
"no  doubt,"  "not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt"  of  his  being  a  bishop, 
the  doctor  himself  knew  better;  he  knew  he  was  no  bishop. 

8.  On  the  supposition,  that  by  recommending  the  use  of  the 
"liluig},"  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  form  of 
government,  to  those  societies  to  whom  he  sent  the  prayer  book, 
then,  he  recommended  the  episcopal  form  of  government  to  his 
societies  in  Scotland,  for  he  sent  the  prayer  book  to  them.  In 
the  British  minutes  of  conference  for  1786,  Mr.  Wesley  says, 
"1  at  length  consented  to  take  the  same  steps  with  regard  to 
Scotland,  which  1  had  done  with  regard  to  America."  And  Mr. 
Myles,  in  his  History  of  the  Methodists,  tells  us,  "Mr.  Wesley 
at  Ihe  conference  of  1785,  set  apart  three  of  our  well  tried 
preachers,  John  Pawson,  Thomas  Hanby,  and  Joseph  Taylor, 
to  minister  in  Scotland.  He  also  recommended  to  tlse  Scotch 
Methodists  the  use  of  the  abridged  common  prayer.  This  latter 
they  declined;  the  former  they  were  thankiul  for."  p.  1 08.  It 
may  be  asked,  v\ liy  was  not  the  episcopal  foim  of  government 
adopted  by  the  Scotch  Methodists,  as  well  as  by  the  American 
;\iethodists.''  For,  according  to  Mr.  E's  statement,  it  was  re- 
commended to  both.  Can  it  be  resolved  into  their  ditferent 
views  ot  church  government,  the  former  being  preshyterians  ; 
the  latter  inclined  to  be  episcopalians.'*  Not  so;  for  Dr.  Coke 
tells  the  bishop  of  London  in  his  letter  to  that  nobleman,  that 
"our  numerous  societies  in  America  would  have  been  a  regular 
presbyterian  church"  if  it  had  not  been  ior  himself  and  Mr.  Wes- 
ley. The  American  Methodists  therefore,  were  in  favor  of  a 
presbyterian  government,  as  well  as  the  Scotch.  Was  it  be- 
cause the  Scotch  Methodists  were  more  obstinate,  and  less  dis- 
posed to  comply  with  Mr.  Wesley's  recommendation,  tlian  the 
American  Metiiodists.''  No.  To  what  then  can  the  difference 
between  the  Scotch  and  American  societies  be  attributed.''  To 
the  diti'eient  views  and  dispositions  of  Mr.  Wesley's  delegates. 
Ihe  one  class  of  delegates  faithfully  and  punctiliously  obeyed 
Mr.  Wesley's  directions.  Tlie  other  class  violated  his  instruc- 
tions, which  were  given  in  the  most  solemn  and  sacred  manner. 
The  Scotch  Methodists,  although  they  "'declined  the  use  of  the 
prayer  book,  were  thankiul  for  the  ordinances,"  and  continued 
in  connexion  with  Mr.  Wesley,  until  the  day  ol  liis  death.  The 
American  Methodists  used  tlie  prayer  book  for  a  little  while, 
and  then  laid  it  aside.  Moreover,  they  rejected  Mr.  Wesley's 
authority,  struck  his  name  off  their  minutes,  and  now  pretend 
to  otier  his  recommendation  of  this  prayer  book,  which  they 


79 

have  long  since  thrown  away,  as  a  recommendation  of  their 
episcopal  form  of  church  government.'!! 

9.  According  to  Mr.  E's  showing,  Mr.  Wesley  recommend- 
ed the  episcopal  form  of  government  to  his  societies  in  England, 
as  well  as  to  those  in  Scotland  and  America.  For  the  same  re- 
commendation, and  the  same  forms  of  ordination,  on  whicti  ♦ir. 
E.  so  confidently  relies,  to  suj^port  the  cause  of  Methodist  epis- 
copacy, are  in  the  abridged  prayer  book  which  is  used  by  the 
English  Methodists  to  this  day.  And  not  only  so,  but  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, at  the  conference  of  1787,  "set  apart  Messrs,  Alexander 
Mather,  Thomas  Rankin,  and  Nenry  Moore,  without  sending 
them  out  of  England,  strongly  advising  them  at  the  same  time, 
that  according  to  his  example,  they  should  continue  unit(;d  to 
the  established  church,  so  far  as  ttie  blessed  work,  in  which 
they  were  engaged,  would  permit.  The  former  of  these  breth- 
ren, Mr.  Mather,  he  ordained  a  superintendent."  Myles's  His.  of 
the  Methodists,  p.  175.  if  the  Scotch  Methodists  refused  to 
follow  Mr.  Wesley's  "  counsel"  and  adopt  the  episcopal  form 
of  government,  because  of  their  strong  predilections  in  favor  of 
presbyterianism,  were  the  English  Methodists  influenced  to  the 
same  amount,  by  those  predilections  also  ?  Or,  of  all  the  socie- 
ties to  whom  the  prayer  book  was  sent,  did  the  .\merican  Me- 
thodists alone,  understand  tbe  import  of  Mr.  Wesley's  recom- 
mendation, and  cheeifully  "  follow  his  counsel,"  by  adopting  this 
mode  of  government  ^  This,  surely  is  incredible  ;  for  if  his  in- 
tentions had  been  misunderstood  elsewhere;  he  was  alive  seve- 
ral years  after  he  recommended  the  use  of  the  ''liturgy"  to  his 
societies  in  England,  and  could  have  corrected  that  mistake,  if 
it  had  been  one. 

10.  If  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  the  episcopal  mode  of 
church  government,  "  an  episcopac;y  in /«c^,"  though  under  the 
name  of  a  superintendent ;  and  if  he  thought  that  the  term 
hiskop  was  innocently,  and  through  inadvertence  or  mistake, 
adopted,  instead  of  the  original  title  superintendent^  he  would 
not,  he  could  not  have  written  his  letter  of  severe  reproof  to 
Mr.  Asbury  for  assuming  the  title  bishop,  without  noticing  the 
dillerence  between  the  terms,  and  pointing  out  the  impropriety 
of  such  a  substitution.  .  But  .VI r.  Wesley  was  well  convinced 
there  was  no  mistake,  or  inadvertence  in  the  assumption  of  the 
title  of  bishop.  He  knew  it  was  taken  in  pointed  opposition  to 
his  authority  ;  and  in  direct  violation  of  his  solemn  commands. 
He  therefore  wrote  in  a  manner,  and  used  such  language,  as  he 
never  did  beibre  or  afterwards.  His  letter  of  reproof  to  Mr. 
Asbury,  for  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  must,  therefore,  re- 
main fo'  ever,  an  irrefragable  proof,  that  he  did  not  design  an 
*' episcopacy  in  fact,"  nor  recommend  the  episcopal  form  of 
government. 


II.  The  American  preachers,  in  the  conference  of  1784,  did 
not  consider  the  reconimeiidation  of  the  use  ot"  the  liturgy  or 
common  prayer,  a  recommendation  ol' the  episcopal  form  of  go- 
vernment, if  they  had,  they  surely  would  have  said  so,  and 
have  set  forth  this  recomniPtidation  as  the  reason  for  their  adopt- 
ini^  this  form.  But  instead  thereof,  they  assign  other  reasons 
for  their  conduct,  and  never  as  much  as  glance  at  Mr.  Wesley's 
reconnnendation  of  the  liturgy.  This  is  an  omission  which  they 
would  not  have  committed,  had  they  considered  his  recommend- 
ation of  the  use  ot  the  liturgy,  a  recomnumlation  of  the  episco- 
pal lorm  of  government.  Having  assigned  their  reasons,  they 
say  "'For  these  reasons  we  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  form  our- 
selves into  an  independent  church.  And  as  the  most  excellent 
mode  of  church  government,  according  to  our  maturest  judg- 
ment is  that  of  a  moderate  episcopacy ;  we  therefore  have  consti- 
tuted ourselves  into  an  episcopal  church."  Not  a  word  about  Mr. 
W  esley's  recommendation  here. 

12.  The  statement  which  is  published  in  the  book  of  discipline, 
eh.  I,  sect.  1,  was  not  published  until  after  the  death  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  which  event  took  place,  nearly  seven  years  after  the 
organization  of  the  church.  Prior  to  his  death,  this  section  had 
not  been  written.  If  Mr.  Wesley  recommended  this  form  of  go- 
vernment, how  came  his  recommendation  to  be  overlooked  or 
forgotten  so  long  .''  Or  how  did  it  happen,  that  it  was  not  pub- 
lished at  an  earlier  period  .''  Was  it  for  fear  that  if  published  in 
his  life  time,  he  would  contradict  it  .-*  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  reason,  we  are  certain  of  this  fact,  that  this  account  was  not 
^^' r\i\  en,  iu]\\\  after  tke  death  ofdMr  Wesley,  as  is  evident  from 
the  manner  in  which  it  speaks  ol  him  as  "the  late  Rev.  John 
Wesley."  Ah  !  this  little  monosyllabie  '■Hate'^''  has  blown  up  the 
whole  atfair  and  has  proven,  not  only,  that  this  first  section,  in 
the  discipline,  was  by  some  one  or  other  foisted  into  it,  but 
that  it  was  done  with  a  view  to  impose  the  episcopal  form  of  go- 
vernment, on  the  societies,  under  the  sanation  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
name.  It  is  in  this  way,  by  little  and  little,  and  by  setting  up  one 
prop  after  another,  that  Viethodist  episcopacy  has  been  estab- 
lished :  and  in  the  certain  admeasurement  of  retributive  jus- 
tice, it  is  by  publishing  one  document  alter  another,  and  by  deve- 
loping one  fact  after  aiiother,  that  Methodist  episcopacy  is  des- 
tined to  come  down. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons,  which  have  induced  me  to  be- 
lieve, that  Mr.  Wesley  never  intended,  by  recommending  the 
use  of  the  liturgy,  to  recommend  the  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment; and  when  Mr.  E.  has  answered  these,  1  promise  him  I  will 
furnish  hitu  with  a  few  others.  Bo'ivever,  to  confirm  what  1  have, 
said,  respecting  the  preachers  who  compused  the  conference 
of  1784,  not  understanding  or  believing,  that  the  recommenda- 
iion  ef  the  prayer  book  was  a  recommendation  of  the  episcopal 


81 

form  of  church  government,  T  shall  subjoin  the  testimony  of  a 
few  of  those,  who  were  members  of  that  couference  and  who 
Jaavp  survived  their  fel  ovv  labourers  of  that  day. 

Extract   of  a   letter  from  Rev.    Edward   l)romg-oole,  dated 

"Brunswick  26  Septr  1828." 

"I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  any  proposition  for  our  re- 
ceiving the  |)ray<^r  book  and  episcopacy  connected.  And  it  is 
certain,  (he  preachers  never  considered  themselves  oblij^ed  to 
conform  to  the  prayer  hook,  for  they  did  not  make  use  of  it  on 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays  as  recommended.''^ 
Yours  very  sincerely 

Edward  Dromgoole,  sen. 
Extract  of  a  letter  fro  n   llev.  Thomas  Ware,  dated 

"Salem  I  Dec.  1828." 

"Mr.  Emory's  Defence  of  our  Fathers,  I  have  seen,  and  once 
read;  but  I  have  it  not;  and  but  an  imperfect  recollection  of 
liis  argument  founded  on  Vir.  vVesiey's  reconmendation  of  the 
liturgy,  I  am  fully  persuaded  the  preachers  in  1781  believed 
they  were  acting  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  Mr  Wesley, 
when  they  adopted  the  episcopal  form  or  the  plan  of  general 
superiniendency.  This  plan  we  know  Mr.  Wesley  approved, 
and  we  called  it  episcopal.  I  did  not  believe  Mr.  Wesley  wish- 
ed us  to  give  it  that  appellation.  Dr.  Coke  was  in  favour  of 
taking  the  name  of  Methodist  episcopal  church  :  argued  the 
plan  of  general  superintendency  was  in  fact  a  s|)ecies  of  episco- 
pacy, but  did  not,  I  think,  bring  the  prayer  book  into  view. 

Thomas  Ware." 

The  following  is  from  Rev.  Jonathan  Forrest. 

"As  for  what  Mr.  Emory  has  said  in  the  Defence  of  our  Fa- 
thers respecting  the  recommendation  of  the  prayer  book  abridg- 
ed by  Mr.  Wesley,  being  a  recommendation  of  the  episcopal 
form  of  church  government  for  the  American  Methodist  socie- 
ties, I  did  not  consider  it  in  that  light  at  the  conference  of  1784. 
Nor  have  I  considered  it  in  that  light,  at  any  time  since.  Nor  do 
I  consider  it  in  tliat  light  now.  Nor  do  I  believe  it  \vas  so  con- 
sidered by  any  person  in  the  conference  of  1784. 

Jonathan  Forrest." 

Section  VIII.— TAe  Prayer  Book  of  11 S6. 

When  I  was  informed  that  Mr,  E,  was  about  to  reply  to  ray 
"History  and  Mystery,"  I  fully  expected  he  would  attem|)t,  in 
some  way,  to  avoid  an  admission  of  Dr,  Coke's  agency  in  the 
publication  of  this  prayer  book.  But,  as  he  has  admitted  this 
fact,  I  think  it  unnecessary  to  swell  this  section  by  arguments 
or  documents  to  prove  it.  I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  oiler 
6 


«2 

what  T  have  to  say  respectina:  this  prayer  hook,  under  three 
heatis  :  The  doctor's  auency  in  having  it  pjintcd — the  prohabil- 
ity  that  Mr.  V\  esley  saw  the  minutes  of  conference  of  1784, 
which  are  re  printed  with  it — and  Mr.  Wesley's  silence  with  re- 
spect to  any  expression  of  his  disapprobation  of  the  title  the 
**Methodist  episcopal  church." 

First.  As  to  Dr.  (  oke's  agency  in  the  publication  of  the  prayer 
book.  The  attention  of  the  reader  is  solicited  to  the  following 
facts.  1.  In  the  year  1784  Mr.  Wesley  abridged  the  prayer 
bojk  of  the  church  ot  England,  and  reconnniended  the  use  of  it 
to  tlie  American  Methodists  :  but  in  all  the  book,  there  is  not 
one  word  about  bishops,  or  episcopacy,  or  about  an  episcopal 
form  of  government.  2.  He  had  this  abridged  prayer  book 
printed  at  his  own  pii  iting  press,  just  before  Dr.  Coke  sailed 
for  Ameiica.  3.  This  prajer  book  was  not  even  hound  in  Eng- 
land ;  for,  as  Mr.  E.  says,  ''the  prayer  book  of  1784  was 
brougltt  to  America  in  sheets.''''  4.  The  minutes  of  the  general  con- 
ference of  1784,  "were  first  printed  m  Ihiladelphia  by  Charles 
Cist,  and  were  bound  up  with  the  prayer  book  which  was 
brought  from  England  in  1784.  '  5.  Dr.  Coke  sailed  from  Ame- 
rica to  England  in  June  1*85,  less  than  six  months  after  the 
church  was  organized,  leaving  a  supply  of  the  prayer  book,  in 
which  the  minutes  were  bound  up,  behind  him,  for  the  Ameri- 
can societies.  Now,  putting  all  these  facts  together,  every  one 
wil'  inquire,  why  had  Dr.  Coke  this  prayer  book  re-  printed  so 
soon  after  his  arrival  in  England  .''  And  why  had  he  it  done  at 
the  press  of  "Frys  and  Couchman,"  and  not  at  Mr.  VVesley"'s  ? 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  1.  that  when  Mr.  Wesley  had  the 
prater  book  printed,  he  had  a  suOicient  number  siruck  off,  to 
serve  his  societies.  2.  The  short  time  which  had  elapsed,  be- 
tween the  doctoi's  leaving  the  United  States,  and  commencing 
prmting  it  in  England,  was  not  suthcient  for  distributing  among 
the  societies,  the  prayer  book  which  he  had  left  behind  in  this 
country;  or  for  asceitaining  wlieiher  tiiere  was  a  sufficient  sup- 
pi)  for  the  societies  or  not.  S.  Even  if  it  had  been  ascertained  that 
there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply,  the  prayer  hook  and  minutes 
were  both  in  tliis  couniiy,  and  could  have  been  re-printed  as 
well,  and  as  cheap  here,  as  they  cuuld  have  been  done  in  Eng- 
land. 1  his  may  be  interred  from  the  pva}er  book  being  brought 
over  "in  sheets,'"  to  be  bound  in  America.  Had  the  ()ra}er  book 
and  minutes  been  re-printed  here,  there  would  then  have  been  a 
saving  of  freight,  risk  &c.:  besides  having  them  ready  for  distri- 
bution at  a  much  earher  period,  than  they  could  have  been,  if 
obtained  from  England.  If  a  farther  supply  w  as  reall}  neces- 
sary, every  thing  was  in  favor  of  having  them  re-printed  in  this 
country,  and  to  men  of  common  sense,  the  matter  will  apptar 
mysterious,  ai»d  unaccouuiabie,  il  there  were  no  particulai  und 

private  ends  to  answer-,  why  they  were  re-printed  in  London, 


89 

a  few  months  after  the  doctor's  return  to  England,  and  not  in  th« 
United  States. 

Second.  But  why  was  the  prayer  hook  and  minutes  re-printed 
at  the  press  of  Frys  and  Couchman,  and  not  at  Mr.  Wesley''s?  I 
answer,  because  the  proceedings  of  the  American  conference,  ia 
•the  assumption  of  the  title  "Methodist  episcopal  church''  &c. 
were  displeasing  to  Mr.  Wesley.  I  have  "candidly  considered" 
what  Mr  E.  says  respecting  the  probability  that  Mr.  VVeslej 
saw  the  minutes  of  conference,  and  cannot  conceive  any  other 
reason  why  the  work  was  done  at  the  press  of  Frys  and  Couch- 
man.  Out  of  the  nine  questions  which  Mr.  E.  has  proposed  to 
the  consideration  of  his  readers,  six  of  them  are  ushered  in  witli 
a  "probahle,"  or  a  "presumable;'^  two  are  accompanied  with  aa 
•'if;"  and  one  is  set  down  as  being  "certain.'"  I  admit  it  to  be  a 
*'certain"  fact,  that  "Mr.  Wesley  felt  a  sufficient  interest  in  this 
matter  to  have  required  from  Dr  Coke  a  particular  account  of 
what  had  been  done  in  America  "  Det.  p.  43.  It  is  therefore 
certain,  that  Mr.  Wesley  saw  those  minutes  or  he  did  not.  If 
he  did  not  see  them,  it  is  evident  that  the  doctor  was  conscious 
of  having  exceeded  Mr.  Wesley's  instructions,  and  having  done 
that,  which  he  was  sensible,  would  be  displeasing  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, when  known.  The  only  way  then,  of  keeping  those  minutes 
from  failing  under  Mr.  Wesley's  notice,  and  yet  to  have  the 
book  printed,  was  to  have  it  done  at  some  other  press.  If,  upoH 
the  other  hand,  Mr.  Wesley  did  see  them,  it  is  rery  evident  that 
he  disapproved  of  the  doctor's  conduct,  and  would  not  allow  the 
prayer  book  and  minutes  to  be  printed  at  his  press.  But  "where 
is  the  evidence,"  says  Mr.  E.  that  Mr.  Wesley  "ever  objected 
to  the  title,  or  to  the  terms  episcopal,  or  episcopacy.''"  Where  ! 
Why,  in  the  very  circumstance  of  this  prayer  boot,  and  these 
minutes  being  re-printed,  not  at  his  own  press,  but  at  the  press  of 
Frys  and  Couchman.  Had  the  doctor  informed  Mr.  Wesley  that 
he  had  received  advices  from  America,  that  there  was  not  a  suf- 
ficient supply  of  the  prayer  book,  for  the  wants  of  the  societies; 
and  had  he  intimated  that  it  would  be  necessary,  to  have  an- 
other edition  printed,  can  any  one  suppose  that  Mr.  Wesley 
would  not  have  had  it  done.-*  that  he  would  have  objected  against 
the  printing  of  it  at  his  own  press,?  or  allow,  nay  compel  the 
doc'or  to  go  to  Frys  and  Couchman  lo  have  the  work  executed 
there  ?  And  moreover,  make  the  doctor  pay  for  the  edition  out 
of  his  own  private,  fortune  .''  Incredible  !  Mr.  Wesley  would 
never  have  acted  in  this  manner,  had  he  approved  of  the  doctor's 
doings;  he  had  veiy  dillerent  ideas  of  generosity  and  justice. 

Considering  this  transanction  then,  in  all  its  par's,  it  is  impos-, 
sible  to  reconcile  the  piinting  of  the  prayer  book  and  minutes 
at  the  press  of  Frys  and  Couchman  with  Mr.  Wesley's  appro- 
hation  of  the  doctor's  proceedings.  Indeed  to  suppose  that  he 
gave  his  consent,  to  have  them  printed  at  any  other  press  than 


84 

his  own,  would  be  incompatible  witb  the  interest  he  had  hereto- 
fore  manifested  towards  the  American  societies.  It  would  have 
been  in  direct  opposition  to  his  usual  custom.  For.  as  the  pro- 
fits of  all  the  books  printed  at  his  press,  were  applied  according 
to  his  views,  to  the  carrying  on  of  the  blessed  work  in  which 
he  was  engaged,  it  is  not  reasonable,  that  in  this  solitary  instance, 
he  would  have  relinquished  his  right  of  disposing  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  this  edition  of  his  prayer  book,  any  more  than  he  would 
of  those  of  any  other  of  his  works.  Or  if  he  intended,  gra- 
tuitously to  tender  the  edition  to  the  American  societies,  he 
would  not  have  thrown  the  payment  of  printing  it  upon  Dr.  Coke. 
He  must  have  been  aware  also,  that  by  refusing  to  have  the 
prayer  book  and  minutes  printed  at  his  own  press,  he  would  af- 
ford ground  to  impugn  Dr.  Coke's  motives  and  conduct,  in  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  as  contravening 
his  own  wishes  and  instructions,  and  yet,  that  consideration 
could  not  prevail  on  him  to  do  a  thing,  that  might  be  construed 
to  imply  an  approval  of  the  proceedings  of  the  doctor  and  the 
American  conference.  In  tine;  for  Dr  Coke  to  have  this  prayer 
book  and  these  minutes  re-printed  in  London — in  a  few  months  af- 
ter his  return  from  the  United  States — before  it  could  have  been 
ascertained  that  a  second  edition  was  necessary — at  the  press  of 
Frys  and  Couchman — and  not  at  Mr.  Wesley's — and  all  out  of  his 
own  private  "fortune."  must  be  proof  positive  and  irresistible, 
to  every  impartial  mind,  that  there  was  an  object  of  a  peculiar 
character  to  be  obtained;  that  the  obtainment  of  it  could  only  be 
etfeced,  by  the  prayer  book  and  minutes  coming  from  England, 
and  that  that  object  was  the  apparent  sanction  of  Mr  Wesley, 
to  the  whole  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1784. 

Third.  "Assuming  as  a  fact,"  says  Mr.  E.  "  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley did  become  acquainted  with  the  acts  and  proceedings  of 
Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  and  the  conference  of  1784,  in  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  we  ask,  where 
is  the  evidence  that  he  ever  disavo\\ed  them  .'"'  Def  p.  45. 
And  is  this  the  proper  question  to  ask  }  Mr.  E.  knows  it  is 
not ;  and  if  he  attempt  to  deny  it,  his  own  pen  shall  contradict 
him.  Although  he, knows  it  is  not  a  proper  question  ;  such  a 
one  as  a  lawyer,  a  doctor  of  divinity,  a  Christian,  a  maii  of  com- 
mon sense,  or  a  candid  deist,  would  ask  if  he  wished  to  arrive 
at  the  truth,  yet  Mr.  E.  artfully  and  shamelessly  (ills  half  a  page 
of  his  book  in  asking  such  questions  ;  until  at  last,  having 
warmed  himself  at  a  fi-e  of  his  own  kindling,  he  concludes  in  a 
sort  of  triumph,  by  saying,  "  VV^e  deny  thai  one  syllable  of  such 
evidence  has  ever  yet  been  produced."  And-suppose  no  such 
evidence  has  ever  been  "  produced,"  will  it  follow  that  no  such 
evidence  is  in  existence,  or  that  Mr.  Wesley  never  "  disa- 
vowed" those  proceedings  ?  Mr.  E.  ought  to  have  recollected, 
that  six  years  ago,  he  might  have  said,  with  as  much  exultation. 


respecting  the  term  "  bishop,"  what  he  now  says  respecting 
"episcopacy,"  and  the  title  "Methodist  episcopal  church." 
But  the  publication  of  Mr  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury,  in 
which  he  says,  "  Men  may  call  me  a  knave^  or  di/ool,  a  rascal, 
.a  scomidrel  and  I  am  content ;  but  they  shall  never  by  my  con- 
sent, call  me  a  bishop,''  has  robbed  Mr.  E.  of  this  boasting,  and 
stands  as  evidence,  that  Mr.  Wesley  strongly  disapproved  of 
the  title  of  "  bishop."  This  letter  was  kept  secret  lor  nearly 
forty  years  ;  notwithstanding  Coke  and  Moore  wrote  a  life  of 
Mr  Wesley,  shortly  after  his  decease.  Additional  evidence 
therefore,  ot  Mr.  Wesley's  disavowal  of  ^'  episcopacy,"  of  the 
episcopal  form  of  ciiurch  government,  and  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  conference  of  1784,  may  be  in  existence,  although  not 
"produced."  For,  how  could  it  be  expected,  that  the  very 
men  who  were  censured  by  Mr.  Wesley,  would  publish  the 
documents  condemning  themselves  and  their  pioceedings  .-*  But 
if  all  the  papers  are  yet  in  existence  which  relate  to  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  &.c.  and  if  tiiese 
papers  were  accessible  to  other  people,  besides  the  men  into 
whose  hands,  they  have  fallen,  I  stiongly  suspect,  and  I  have 
reasons  for  thinking  so  which  Mr.  E.  knows  nothing  of,  that 
the  boasting  of  the  author  of  the  "Defence  of  our  Fathers"  would 
be  temporary  and  vain. 

To  the  most  superficial  reader  it  is  plain,  that  it  is  not  by  the 
absence  of  evidence,  of  the  disavowal  "  of  the  proceedings  of  Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  conference  of  1784,"  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's approbation  of  those  proceedings,  and   his   recognition  of 
the  title  "  Methodist   episcopal  church,"    are   to    be    proved. 
As  well  might  A  say  that   his  title  to  an  estate  was  valid,  be- 
cause B  could  not  produce  a  title  to  the  same  estate.     And  yet 
it  is  in  this  way — a  way  which   shocks  common  sense,  and  it 
might  be  added,  common  honesty,  that  Mr.  E.  strives  to  support 
the  claims  of  Methodist  episcopacy.     If  these  claims  are  just 
and  well  founded,  let  it  be  shown   by  positive  proof.     If  Mr. 
Wesley  did,  indeed,  approve  of"  the  proceedings  of  Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Asbury,  and  the  conference  of  1784,"  let  the  evidence  of  it 
be  produced.     If  Methodist  episcopacy  had  Mr.  Wesley's  ap- 
probation, it  will  be  strange,  if  nothing  of  this  approbation  can 
be  found,  among  all  Mr.  Wesley's,  Dr.  Coke's,  or  Mr.  Asbury's 
papers.     To  produce  documentary  and  explicit  evidence  of  this 
fact  I   challenge  the  world.     If  such  evidence   is  among  Mr. 
Wesley's  papers,  Mr.  Moore  can  produce  it.     If  such  evidence 
is  among  Dr.  Coke's  papers,  Mr.  Drew  can  produce  it.     And  if 
such  evidence  is  among   Mr.  Asbury's  papers,  Mr.  McKendre© 
can  produce  it.     Mr.  E.  has  called   for  help  from   bretliren   in 
Europe  as  well  as  in  America,  let  us  see  if  the  above  gentlemen, 
who  are  all   alive,  will   be  able  to  furnish  tlie  documents  now 
called  for.     "  The  burden  of  proof  in  this  matter  is  not  proper- 


80 

>y  incumbent  on  us,"  Def.  p.  S6,  but  on  Mr.  E.  If  he  does  net 
produce  it,  his  shuffling  attempts  to  defend  Methodist  episco- 
pacy in  this  negative  sort  of  way,  will  stand  in  proof,  that  nei- 
ther this  "  episcopacy  nor  this  episcopal  form  of  government" 
haiJ  Mr.  Wesley's  approbation. 

The  strong  manner  in  which  1  have  expressed  myself  in  the 
call  for  '■'■documentary  and  explicit  evidence"  that  Mr.  Wesley 
approved  of  the  proceedings  of  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury  and  the 
conference  ©f  1784,  may,  perhaps  to  some,  be  exceptionable  : 
but  I  consider  the  subject,  and  tlie  circumstances  under  which  I 
write,  not  only  justify,  but  imperiously  demand  it.  Nor  would 
I  venture  to  express  myself  in  this  manner  were  it  not,  that  I 
am  very  confident  no  such  evidence  can  be  produced.  There 
is  now  lying  before  me  a  letter  from  a  preacher  who  was  a 
member  of  the  conference  of '84,  which  contains  the  following 
sentence  :  "  Dr.  Coke,  in  1787,  made  us  a  second  visit,  and 
brought  instructions  with  him  from  Mr.  Wesley,  which  instruc- 
tions I  never  saw,  or  heard  but  in  part.  1  received  a  letter  from 
a  preacher  who  had  seen  them,  and  quoted  from  them  the  fol- 
lowing words  :  Put  as  few  things  as  possible  to  vote.  If  you 
(Dr.  Coke)  brother  Asbury  and  brother  Whatcoat  are  agreed,  it 
is  suflicient."  Mr.  Wesley  gave  these  directions,  because  he 
disapproved  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  of  1784. 
Will  Mr.  E.  say,  he  objects  to  "  this  third  hand  report  ?"  He 
can  receive  the  same  information  from  Rev.  Nelson  Reed  who 
relate-d  to  myself,  Mr.  Wesley's  objection  to  putting  things  to 
vote. 

Tliere  are  two  or  three  other  things,  which  I  shall  briefly  no- 
tice, before  I  proceed  to  the  next  section.  "Mr.  M-Caine  has 
represented,  that  iVir.  Wesley  did  punish  Dr.  Coke  for  his  pro- 
ceedings at  this  period,  by  leav  ng  his  name  ofithe  minutes  for 
one  year.  But  this  is  an  entire  r.mluke.^''  Di  f.  43.  My  words 
«re,  ""Under  these  circumstances  as  some  decisi\e  steps  were 
necessary  to  be  taken  in  this  critical  atiair,  it  was  finally  deter- 
mined, that  the  name  of  Dr  Coke  should  be  omitted  in  the  min- 
utes for  the  succeeding  year:  it  was  accoidingly  omitted."  His. 
and  Mys.  p.  46.  1  'ga\  e  this  as  a  quotation  from  Drew's  life  of 
Dr.  Coke.  Let  us  now  see,  how  Mr.  E.  proves  this  to  be  a 
*'  mistake^  "Under  these  circumstances,  as  some  decisive  steps 
were  necessary  to  be  taken  in  this  critical  affair,  it  was  finally 
determined,  that  the  name  of  Dr.  Coke  should  be  omitted  in  the 
minutes  for  the  succeeding  year."  Def.  p.  61.  The  very  words 
1  had  quoted,  and  wliich,  he  says,  was  an  entire  mistake!  And 
is  this  the  way  Mr.  E.  proves  my  mistake  .''  But  this  is  only 
one  of  Mr.  E's  little  tricks  ;  there  is  another  skulking  in  the 
next  two  lines.  "  At  this  very  conference  of  1785,  Dr.  Coke's 
name  appears  in  the  British  Minutes,  after  John  and  Charles 
Wesley  themselves."     And  what  if  it  does  }    Does  that  prove 


87 

the  "wrVrtfce?"  "Really  T  always  thought,  that  the  "  succeeflin^ 
year''' al'tpi-  1785  was  1786.  The  very  year  I  said  Dr.  Coke's 
name  was  left  oH'  the  British  minutes.  And  if  Mr.  E.  can  find 
the  floctor's  name  in  thr  minutes  ot"  1786,  I  will  acknowledge  I 
liave  made  a  mistake  indeed. 

Mr.  E  says,  "in  1787  and  1788  he  (Dr.  Coke)  was  aijjaia 
stationed  in  London  with  John  and  Charles  Wesley."  Ami  he 
intimates  in  the  same  paragraph  thai  I  asserted  that  the  doctor's 
name  was  left  oti  in  I7h9.  Now  in  tliis  slmrt  paragraph  con- 
sisting of  seven  lines  only,  there  are  three  capita!  biundei-s,  or 
misrepresentat.ions.  F«r  Charles  V\  esle}  died  Maich  29lh, 
17^8,  and  yet  Mr.  E.  stations  Dr  Coke  with  liim  in  London  after 
he  was  dead  !!  And,  as  if  that  was  not  enough,  he  stations  the 
doctor  with  him  again  in  London  in  1790,  two  years  and  four 
months  after  Mr.  Wesley's  decease.  Nor  is  this  all.  Mr.  E. 
might  have  seen,  if  fie  had  looked  carefully  into  llie  matter,  that 
Dr.  Coke  sailed  for  America  in  Ocioher  1790,  and  did  not  re- 
turn !o  England  until  after  the  death  of  Mr.  John  Wesley.  So 
that  while  Dr.  Coke  was  in  .America,  and  Charles  Wesle)  was 
upwards  of  two  years  in  heaven,  Mr.  E.  will  have  them  both 
stationed  together  in  London.  But  the  worst  of  all  is,  that  in 
the  *  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal  for  June  3,  1828,"  Mr. 
E  strives  to  make  his  readers  believe  that  these  "errors''  were 
not  in  the  "  original  manuscript  "  "  How  the  name  of  diaries 
Wesley,  says  he,  came  to  be  inserted  in  this  place,  I  am  not 
able  to  say.  I  think  it  could  not  have  been  so  in  the  original 
manuscript  ;  because,  in  writing  this  passage,  the  minutes  of 
the  British  conference  were  open  before  me."  I  believe  it  is 
susceptible  of  proof,  that  Mr.  E.  knew  nothing  of  these  "  errors" 
until  they  were  mentioned  to  him  by  the  Hon.  Judge — That 
when  informed  of  them,  he  expressed  surprise,  and  said,  "it  can- 
not be,  for  I  had  the  British  minutes  before  me.  when  I  wrote 
the  account.  It  must  be  a  typographical  error;''  and  so  confi- 
dent was  he  that  the  "original  manuscript"  was  correct,  that  he 
would  not  believe  to  the  contrary,  until  he  went  to  the  house 
of  a  gentleman  in  Baltimore  and  examined  those  minutes.  Atid 
now,  forsooth,  he  wants  to  throw  the  blame  upon  the  poor 
printer,  and  to  metamorphose  him  into  a  scape-goat.  No,  no, 
the  printer  is  innocent  of  the  charge.  It  serves,  however,  as 
another  proof  of  Mr.  E's  disingenuousness,  and  of  his  willing- 
ness to  throw  the  blame  upon  any  one,  rather  than  admit  that 
he  can  be  "  mistaken.'' 

— aO'©— 

Section  IX. — Bishop  Jlsbury. 

Although  the  name  of  Bishop  Asbury  stands  at  the  head  of 
Uiis  section,  very  little  is  said  respecting  him,  on  the  two  or 
three  first  pages  of  Mr.  E's  book  :  iVir.  Wesley  beinjf  broujjht 


forward  as  the  principal  personage.  Nor,  is  the  manner  iu 
which  Mr.  Wesley's  nanne  is  menlioned,  free  from  all  excep- 
tion ;  for  it  would  seem  as  if  Mr.  E.  intended,  by  inserting  the 
name  of  Mr  Wesley,  connected  with  all  his  implied  frailties 
and  imperfections,  to  set  off,  b.  contrast,  the  splendid  virtues  of 
Mr.  Asbury.  This  surely,  is  not  right.  We  ought  to  do  them 
both  justice,  for  they  are  both  entitled  to  our  "reverence  un- 
feigned and  profoutid/"  "  We  have  never  felt  free,  however, 
(says  Mr  E  )  to  claim  for  him  (Mr.  Wesley)  absolute  infalli- 
bility." And  who  ever  did  .''  Mr.  V^  esley  never  claimed  it  for 
himself;  nor  would  he  allow  any  to  claim  it  for  him,  or  attri- 
bute it  to  him,  if  they  were  inclined  to  do  so.  Indeed,  were  it 
necessary  to  institute  a  comparison  between  Mr.  Asbury  and 
Mr.  Wesley  on  this  point,  there  certainly  would  be  much 
stronger  evidence  in  proof  that  Mr.  Asbury  was  nearer  claim- 
ing "  infallibility"  for  himself,  by  asserting  '■'•divine  authority^' 
for  his  episcopal  power,  than  ever  Mr.  Wesley  v\as.  But 
waiving  all  this,  from  the  insidious  manner  in  which  Mr.  E. 
expresses  himself,  it  must  be  evident,  that  his  profession  of 
"  reverence  for  the  name  and  chaiacter  of  Mr.  Wesley"  is 
hollow  and  insincere,  and  that  his  reniaik,  respecting  his  "  ab- 
solute infallibility,"  is  not  only  uncalled  for,  but  invidious.* 

*  In  the  "  christian  Advocate  and  Journal,"  of  February  8th.  1828,  there 
IS  a  letter  from  Mr  E.  to  tlie  editors,  in  which  he  states  "  sofne  facts" 
which  he  says  '*  may  be  worth  preserving."  They,  are  these  :  "  When  Dr. 
"White  was  in  England  in  1787,  he  was  desirous  of  seeing  Mr.  VN'esley,  ta 
state  to  him  some  circumstances,  ot  which  he  supposed  he  might  be  unin- 
formed, in  eference  to  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  societies  in  Amer- 
ica as  a  distinct  church  "  With  this  view  lie  called  at  Mr.  V\  esley's  house, 
and  left  a  letter  which  he  had  obtained  from  Mr.  Pilniore.  Sometime  after 
this.  Dr.  White  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  \A  esley,  infbrniing  him  '  tliat  he 
would  stop  at  his  house  on  a  certain  day,  if  convenient  to  him."  Mr  'V^  t- sley 
answei'ed  that  he  was  then  engaged  in  a  periodical  duty  "vrliich  would  preJ 
vent  him  from  receiving  the  visit  at  the  time  mentioned;"  "but  that  incase 
of  l)r  White's  stay  of  a  week  or  two,  he  would  derive  pleasure  from  the 
interview  proposed."     These  are  the  "  facts;"  now  for  the  inferences. 

Mr  E.  "  thinks"  that  Dr.  White's  "  conjecture,  '  is  '*  hii^hly  probable,  '  that 
Mr.  Weslej'  supposed,  that  Dr.  W  hite  ivishcd  "to  impugn  the  measure  which 
Mr.  Wesley  had  adopted  with  resjject  !0  the  Methodists  in  America,  and 
-I'hich  he  did  nut  intend  to  relinqxdsh.'^  Mr-  E.  farther  thinks,  "that  a  nian  of 
Mr.  Wesley's  distinction  and  politeness  sIk  idd  have  evinced  so  little  disjio- 
sition  to  have  an  interview  with  Dr.  W  hite,  is  one  of  the  strongest  facts  which 
we  can  well  imagine,  in  proof  of  the  fixedness  of  his  views,  in  relation  t» 
the  nteasures  which  he  had  adopted,  for  the  distinct  organization  of  the  Meth- 
odist episcopal  church  in  America  ;"  and  of  his  hemg  perfect  ly  satisfied, 
with  the  title,  'the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  Mr  E.'also  thinks  it  re- 
markable, that  so  polite  a  man  as  VJr  Wesley  was,  should  decline  an  inter- 
view with  Dr.  \\  hite,  and  can  in  no  way  account  for  it,  but  on  the  supposi- 
tion above  stated.  If  his  supp(<.sition  or  c<mjecture  "furnish  one  of  the 
strongest  facts X\\3\  can  be  well  imagined  in  proof,''  of  Mr.  Wesley's  appro- 
bation of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference,  in  adopting  the  episcopal  form 
of  government,  that  proof  is  weak  indeed,  and  "unentitled  to  one  particle 
of  credit"  The  reader  has  Mr.  E's  explanation  of  Dr.  White's  proposed 
interview  with  Mr.  Wesley,  and  the  reasons  which  influenced  Mr.  Wesley 


89 

That  I  may  not  be  the  mere  copyist  of  Mr.  E's  omissions 
or  mistakes,  1  shall  take  a  briel  view  of  Mr.  Asbury's  eatiy, 
ministerial  life — his  sentiments  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical 
government — and  the  probable  influence  these  sentiments  had 
upon  the  introduction,  and  establishment  of  the  government  of 
the  ^iethodist  episcopal  church. 

In  his  "'Journals,"  Mr.  Asbury  tells  us  that  his  "  parents  were 
people  in  common  life,"  his  father  "  being  employed  as  a  farm- 
er and  gardener  by  the  two  richest  families  in  the  parish" — 
that  he  "  was  sent  to  school  early,  and  began  to  read  the  Bi- 
ble between  six  and  seven  years  of  age'' — that  in  consequence 
of  the  ill  usage  he  received  from  his  schoolmaster,  he  did  not 
remain  long  at  school — that  "  when  he  was  about  thiiteen  years 
and  a  hali  old,  he  made  choice  of  a  branch  of  business,  at  which 
he  v\rought  about  six  years  and  a  half"  That  he  was  '"awaken- 
ed beiore  he  was  fourteen  years  of  age," — that  when  he  "was 
between  twenty-one  and  twenty-two,  he  gave  himself  up  to  God 
and  his  work,  after  acting  as  a  local  preacher  near  the  space  of 
five  years."  Journals,  vol.  2,  p.  I33etsrq.  "In  the  month  of 
September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  seven  hun- 
dred and  seventy-one,  he  tells  us,  he  embarked  in  England  for 
Anierica."  He  was  then  26  years  old  ;  and  from  his  arrival  in 
this  country,  until  the  church  was  organized,  was  lH  years. 

When  Mr.  Asbury  arrived  in  America,  there  were  but  few 
preachers,  or  members  in  society  ;  for  it  appears  by  the  book 
of  minutes,  that  when  the  first  conference  was  held  in  IT'S, 
two  years  after  his  arrival,  there  were  only  10  preachers,  and 
1160  members.  From  the  commencement  of  his  labours,  his 
influence  must  have  been  great ;  and  no  circumstance  was  better 
calculated  to  increase  it  and  fix  it  permanently,  than  his  re- 
maining in  this  country,  through  the  whole  of  the  revolutionary 
war,  after  his  colleagues  and  countrymen  had  returned  to  Eiig- 
land. 

I  am  next  to  consider  his  sentiments  with  respect  to  church 
government.  And  these  w  ere  decidedly  and  invariably  in  favor 
of  episcopacy.  Nor  do  I  mean  by  that  term  such  a  non-descript 
"  thing,"  as  Mr.  E.  calls  episcopacy  ;  but  really  and  truly  such 
an  episcopacy,  and  such   an   episcopal   form  of  government  as 


to  decline  accepting:  the  visit.  Now  let  us  have  Mr.  Wesley's  account,  lie 
says,  tlie  reason  of  his  not  receivint;'  Dr.  W  hite's  visit  at  the  time  proposed, 
was,  "  that  he  was  then  engaged  in  a  periodical  duty  of  an  exaniin.iti(in  of 
his  society  "  Mr.  E.  says,  the  reason  was,  ''that  Mr.  Wesley  had  not  the 
smallest  disposition,  in  any  way,  to  depart  from  what  he  iiatl  done,  jr  /leav 
it  impvgned.''  Mr  Wesley  says  "  in  case  of  Dr.  "W  lute's  stay  of  a  week  or^ 
two,  he  would  derive  pleasure  from  the  interview  proposed  "  Mr.  K.  inti- 
mates that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  wish  to  receive  the  \\s\X  at  all,  and  purpose- 
ly avoided  it,  lest  he  should  have  the  pain  of  hearing  "  the  measures  which 
he  had  adopted  impugned.'.'''  I  always  knew,  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  poliie 
man,  but  1  never  knew  that  he  was  a  liar. 


90 

there  is  in  the  church  of  England    in  which  are  three  orders  of 

mini^ter^,  bishops,  [jiirsts,  atitl  deacons.  Auy  thinu  short  of 
this,  fell  short  ot  his  views  of  episcopac)',  and  of  an  episcopal 
form  of  jiovernment. 

Ill  proof  of  this  statoment,  it  must  be  noticed,  I.  That  Mr. 
Asbury  v\  as  educated  and  brought  up  in  the  church  of  F^ngland  ; 
ai.(!  it  is  very  reasonable  to  suppose,  that,  unless  like  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, he  had  been  convinced  "to  the  contrary,  he  would  retain  the 
doctrines  of  the  church  in  whicii  he  had  been  brought  up,  and 
which  adiTiitted  the  lliree  orders. 

2  Ml.  Drew,  in  his  account  of  the  schism  which  took  place 
among  the  preachers  in  1778  respecting  tlie  ordinances,  and  the 
part  Mr.  Asbury  acted  on  that  occasion,  says,  "  Mr  Asbury  on 
hearing  their  statement  and  request,  found  himself  in  an  unpleas- 
ant situation.  From  princijAe  he  was  strongly  attached  to  the 
episcopacy  which  had  been  abolished."  Drew's  life  of  Dr.  Coke, 
p.  60.  And  on  the  next  page  he  says,  "  Mr.  Asbury,  in  the 
nuanwhile,  who  had  not  yet  shaken  otf  the  rusty  fetters  of 
JjpostoUcal  succession.,  found  himself  comparatively  deserted  by 
those  whose  respect  for  him  still  lemained  undiminished.'" 

3.  Dr.Coke  and  Mv.  Moore,  in  their  life  of  Mr.  Wesley,  ex- 
press themselves  pretty  much  in  the  same  language  "  Mr  As- 
buiy's  attachment  to  the  church  of  England,  was  at  that  time 
(the  time  of  the  schism)  exceedingly  slrong.''^  p  350. 

4.  Mr.  Asbury  himself,  has  expressly  stated  his  preference 
for  episcopacy.  It  is  not  necessary  to  transcribe  all  the  parts, 
which  can  be  found  in  his  Journals,  where  there  is  any  allu- 
sion to  this  preferencp.  The  Ibllowing  extract  is  in  point  ; 
and  the  vvoik  to  which  he  alludes,  is  the  woik  of  one,  whom 
]V«r.  E.  has  denounced  as  being  a  high  churchman.  "I  read,  and 
transcribed  some  of  Potter's  church  government  •,  and  must  prejcr 
the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government  to  the  Presbyterian  " 
Vol.  1.  p.  285.  And  on  the  next  page  he  says,  "  1  read  and 
transcribed  som.eof  Potter's  church  government  till  ten  o'clock." 
From  the  circumstance  of  his  transcribing  parts  of  this  work,  I 
would  infer  ttiat  arclibishop  Pottei  \Aas  a  tavourite  author  with 
Mr.  Asbury  ;  and  yet  no  writer  more  strenuously  defends 
"apostolical  succession,"  the  "divine  right"  of  the  priesthood, 
anu  the  third  order  of  ministers  than  archbishop  Potter  does. 

5.  The  lollovving  extract  is  from  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  As- 
bur),  dated  Dec  26! h,  1806. 

"If  our  title  had  not  been  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  and 
if  the  English  ti^anslation  had  not  rendered  the  episcopoi,b\s,]iops 
in  the  epistles  ot  Paul  to  Timoth)  and  Titus,  well  contented  am 
I  to  be  called  sujierintendent,  not  bishop  !  I  was  elected  and  or- 
dained a  superintendent,  as  my  parchments  will  prove.  Does 
the  fCiipture  say  the  elder  shall  be  the  husband  of  one  wife;  by 
some  men's  rule  of  reasoning,  we  mij^ht  prove,  because  it  is  not 


91 

•xpressly  said  of  an  elder,  as  a  deacon  and  bishop  in  scripture, 
he  shall  be  a  fiushand  ot  one  wife,  elders  shall  not  marry,  be- 
cause we  have  no  exjjress  scripture;  but  they  say,  ue  are  the 
same  order,  then  why  not  the  same  name  in  Greek  and  P^.nghsh  ? 
•Why  not  deacons  and  bishops  of  the  same  order  ?  This  all 
churches  agree  in,  they  are  not.  It  is  an  easy  matter  for  our 
brethren,  members  and  ministers  that  move  in  narrow  circles  to 
talk  to  little  purpose"* 

My  third  inquiry  is,  had  these  sentiments  any  influence,  in  in- 
troducing and  establishing  the  episcopal  form  ol"  government, 
when  the  church  was  organized  ?  It  is  very  probable  they  had. 
1.  Because  Mr  Asbury  was  fond  of  power;  and  it  is  reasonable 
lo  suppose  that  he  wished  the  atloption  of  that  form  of  govern- 
ment, which  was  most  likely  to  secuie  to  himself,  the  power,  he 
at  that  time,  possessed.  Mr.  E.  does  not  claim  for  Mr.  Wesley 
"absolute  infallibility;"  and  it  is  presumable,  he  will  not  claim 
for  Mr.  Asbury  absolute  '■'■perjection''''  or  an  entire  exemption  from 
the  lot  of  the  whole  human  lamily.  As  a  man,  theretore,  he 
must  have  been  under  the  influence  of  some  ruling  passion,  of 
some  predominant  principle  ;  and  who  that  ever  kneio  Mr.  As- 

*  "As  to  the  charge  of  our  having"  at  any  time  considered  our  bishops  as  a 
distinct  ministerial  order,  contradistinguished  from  and  superior  to  presby. 
ters,  it  h;i8  no  foinidation  in  fact.  The  ver_\'  circumstance  of  our  havwig  ac- 
knowledged the  riglit  of  elders  to  ordain,  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  tiie  al- 
legation. Wc  consider  the  episeopacy  a  superior  office  in  the  church,  not  a 
distinct  ministerial  order  ;  ai.d  this  is  the  light  in  which  it  lias  been  consider- 
ed ever  since  the  institution."  Narrative  and  Uefence,  p  66.  W  ill  Mr. 
George  Eearnest  &  Co.  persist  in  their  assertion,  after  they  have  read  the 
above  extract  from  Mr.  Asbury 's  letter?  \Vill  ihey  still  insist  on  the  correct- 
ness of  tlieir  position,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Moi  leil,  Mr.  Bangs  and  Mr  Kmory 
have  said  theie  are  "three  orders?"  Mr.  Earnest  &.  (Jo  ought  to  have  nad 
more  prudence  than  to  have  publislied  their  opinion;  and  more  caution  than 
to  set  their  names  to  a  book,  the\  did  not  write,  and  which  some  ot  them, 
perhaps,  could  not  even  reatl.  Daniel  ch  V.  8  v.  They  make  a  fine  figure, 
to  be  sure,  with  their  little  scraps  of  French,  and  Latin,  and  Greek;  and  hav- 
ing ornaniented  their  pages  wiih  these  pret'v  little  things,  they  thought  they 
might  tell  the  world,  tliat  i  "had  been  ratseU  to  dintincii'jn  btf  the  lonnexi'.n." 
If,  by  the  phrase  "raised  to  distinction,'"  Mr.  Karnest  tueans.  that  1  was 
awakened  and  converted  by  the  insirumenlality  »f  the  preachers  of  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church,  he  must  allow  me  to  tell  hini,  he  is  niistaKen. 
If,  by  that  phrase,  he  means,  I  was  a  seiiii-mendicant,  betore  I  became  a 
travelling  preacher,  and  that  liie  "connexion'  took  me  ott  the  dunghill;  he 
must  permit  me  to  tell  him,  tha  when  I  entered  into  the  i  ravelling  connexion, 
I  relinquished  a  salary  of  seven  huntlred  dollars  a  year,  although  i  knew 
at  the  time  I  did  it.  I  could  only  receiv  e  sixty  tour  dollars^  a  year  as  a  travel- 
ling preacher.  Or,  if,  by  being  "raised  to  distinction"  .Mr  (-.arnest  means 
literary  "distinctiim,"  and  that  1  am  indebted  to  tne  "connexion"  for  what 
little  learning  I  have,  he  compels  me  to  tell  him,  1  was  receiving  a  classical 
education  when  he  was  hammering  liis  heel-taps  upon  a  lapstone.  'I  lie  fact' 
is,  1  have  done  more  for  the  coi.nexi  'U  than  toe  connex.on  has  done  for  me. 
And  now,  before  we  part,  I  will  take  the  libi  ri}  to  give  Mr  Earnest  a  vvoitl 
of  ailvice  I,et  book  making  a.id  book  A7^/;i -^  alone  liereaf'.er;  for  you 
may  depend  upon  it,  you  know  noihinij  of  church  history,  or  about  "minis- 
terial orders." 


bury,  does  not  know,  that  that  passion  was  the  love  of  power. 
He  had  been  the  principal  personage,  in  the  connexion  so  long; 
he  had  exercised  the  authority  of  ''general  assistant"  fbr  so 
manj  }ear!-,  that  when  the  church  was  about  to  be  organized,  he 
could  not  think  of  adopting  any  form  of  government,  which 
would  have  anj  tendency  to  abridge  his  prerogatives,  or  distri- 
bute his  power  among  his  brethren.  As  he  had  been  chief,  he 
must  be  chief  still.  It  was  this  love  of  power  that  led  him  to 
•prcftr  episcopacy  to  pieshyterianism.  It  was  this  principle 
wliicli  made  him  oppose  My.  Wesley's  authority  and  violate 
Mr.  Wesley's  instructions.  This  principle  dictated  the  letter 
mentioned  by  Mr.  Brackenbury  to  Dr.  Coke  at  Leeds,  in  which 
he  declared  ''he  would  not  receive  any  person  deputed  by  Mr. 
Wesley  to  take  any  part  of  the  superintendency  invested  in  him." 
To  the  same  principle  may  be  ascribed  his  language  to  Mr. 
George  Shadford,  respecting  Mr.  Wesley  :  "Mr.  Wesley  and  I 
are  like  Caesar  and  Pompey,  he  will  bear  no  equal  and  I  will 
bear  no  superior."  It  was  this  principle  which  opposed  the  call 
ol  a  general  conference  of  the  travelling  preacliers,  and  preferred 
a  "council"  composed  of  owly  nine  presiding  elders,  who  were 
all  appointed  by  himself:  wisely  judging,  the  narrow'er  the  cir- 
cle, the  easier  it  would  be  to  cover  it;  and  the  smaller  the  nume- 
rical re^^isiance,  the  easier  it  would  be  to  o\ercome  it.  It  was 
this  principle  which  led  him  toexercise  a  negative  upon  the  pro- 
ceedings ol  even  this  small  number  which  composed  the  "coun- 
cil," and  when  urged  to  give  it  up,  resisted  and  said,  '-'-my  nega- 
tive is  my  own.''''  It  was  this  princi})le  that  opposed  the  appeal  of 
An-.  0'Kelly,at  the  general  conlerence  of  1792;  by  the  rejection 
of  which  he  retained  in  his  own  hands,  the  sole  power  of  station- 
ing the  preachers  without  an  appeal.  It  was  this  principle  which 
gave  birth  and  growth  to  the  contentions  between  Dr.  Coke  and 
hiniselt.  *  It  was  this  principle  which  planned  a  delegated  ge- 
net al  conlerence;  and  this  principle  ceased  not  to  influence  him 
as  long  as  he  lived.  Takmg  into  view,  then,  the  whole  of  Mr. 
Asbuiy's  conduct,  both  before  and  after  the  general  conference 
of  1784,  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  this  ''master  passion,"  this 
piedominant  principle  would  be  mute  or  inoperative  at  the  or- 
ganization of  the  church;  especially  considering  the  ascendency 
he  had  obtained  over  both  pieachers  and  people-  and  his  exceed- 
ingly strong  attachment  to  the  church  of  England,  and  to  the 
epi>copal  loim  ot  goveinment.  2.  It  has  already  been  shewn^ 
that,  '■'■Jrom  principle^^  Mr.  Asbury  "was  strongly  attached  to 

*  Notwithstanding'  all  Mr.  E.  has  said  respecting  the  good  understanding, 
the  harnion\ ,  tiie  union,  the  atiection  !s.c  subsisting  i)etueen  Ur.  (Joke  and. 
Mr.  Asbury;  the  contrary  /  kj:o-w  to  be  the  fact.  Several  letter.s,  from  these 
genilemen,  in  proof  of  tliis  slutenient,  are  now  in  my  possession.  These  let- 
ters I  decline  publishing  at  present,  but  shall  do  it  hevealtei",  if  I  am  com- 
pelled to  it. 


93 

episcopacy".  That  "his  attachment  to  the  church  of  Ensfland 
was  exceedingly  strong.''^  That  he  "preferred  the  episcopal  morle 
of  church  government  to  the  presbyterian."  And  that  lie  main- 
tained tlie  doctrine  of  f/jree  orders^  bishops,  presbyters,  and  dea- 
cons. To  be  consistent  with  himself,  he  must  have  wished,  when 
the  church  was  about  to  be  orjjanized,  to  have  such  a  form  of 
government  as  corresponded  with  his  vieivs.  It  is  reasona- 
ble, therefore,  to  suppose,  that  he  exerted  all  his  influence  with 
the  preachers,  to  obtain  for  her  the  episcopal  for  ii,  which  he 
thoug^ht  was  the  best,  and  which  he  preferred  to  all  others.  As 
he  acted  "from  principle^''  and  according  to  the  best  of  his  know- 
ledge, the /loies/ reader  will  readily  understand,  "what  ideas  I 
attach  to  the  terms  wise  and  good  ""  I  will  not  deny  however, 
that  men  who  are  of  a  diti'erent  character,  or  who  do  not  act 
"from  principle"  may  be  utterly  at  a  loss  to  compi'ehend  me ; 
nor  would  I  be  able  to  make  the  blind  see,  although  I  might 
spend  hours,  in  the  fruitless  attempt. 

How  far  Mr  Wesley's  conduct  may  have  served,  as  a  justi- 
fication to  Mr.  Asbury,  to  strive  to  have  the  episcopal  form  of 
government  adopted,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  I  readily  ad- 
mit, that  the  bare  circumstance  of  the  "setting  apart  Dr.  Coke" 
to  the  office  of  "a  superintendent,"  by  the  imposition  of  hands, 
simply  and  abstractedly  considered,  might  have  led  Mr.  Asbury 
to  suppose,  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  intend  the  episcopal  form  of  go- 
vernment;  especially,  when  we  consider,  how  strongly  Mr  As- 
bury was  prejudiced  in  favor  of  that  kind  of  government,  where 
the  three  orders  are  recognized.  Upon  the  other  liand,  I  do  not 
see  how  it  was  possible  for  him  to  understand  Mr.  Wesley  to 
have  recommended  such  a  form  of  government,  because  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's circular  letter  was  before  his  eyes.  In  that  letter  Mr.  Wesley 
expressly  declares  his  conviction,  that  there  are  but  Iwo  orders^ 
presbyters  and  deacons;  bishops  and  presbyters  being  the  same. 
The  probability  of  Mr.  Asbury's  understanding  Mr.  Wesley  to 
have  recommended  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  is  farther 
diminished  by  another  fact,  namely,  that  Mr.  Wesley  severely 
reproved  him  for  assuming  the  title  of  bishop,  which  title  was 
exceedingly  offensive  to  Mr.  Wesley.  Had  Mr.  Asbury  really 
misunderstood  Mr.  Wesley's  intentions,  and  had  not  the  title  of 
bishop  been  an  object  of  primary  consideration  with  him,  an  ob- 
ject upon  which  his  very  heart  and  soul  were  fixed,  it  cannot  he 
conceived  how  he  could  have  pursued  it  with  so  much  perse- 
verance, and  clung  to  it  with  so  much  tenacity;  that  he  would  r;i- 
ther  forfeit  the  esteem  of  "one  of  liis  greatest  friends"''  than  pait 
with  it.  But  the  following  facts  put  this  matter  beyond  all  doul»f,. 
and  incontestibly  prove,  that  JVIr.  iVcsley  was  not  misunderstood. 
Dr.  Coke's  letter  of  appointmen',  which  "was  pari  of  the  sketch,''^ 
was  suppressed.  The  circular  letter  of  Sept.  10.  l7'-^t,  was  muii- 
latcd.     Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  struck  off  tke  minutes  in  two 


u 

years  after  the  church  was  organized,  and  the  title  "bishop" 
was  assumed.  Tlie  minutes  of  conference  were  subsequently  al- 
tered^ so  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name,  which  stood  on  the  original 
minutes  foi'  '85  and'  86,  does  not  appear  on  the  printed  minutes 
from  1784  till  1789.  No  notice  is  taken  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death, 
altho'  obituary  notices  are  taken  of  all  who  died  the  same  year, 
one  of  whom  had  not  been  more  than  "fwo  years  and  a  half''  in 
the  field  of  labour.  Mr.  Asbury  makes  no  mention  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's name,  when  enumerating  the  sources  whence  he  derived 
bis  "episcopal  authority."  And  lastly,  the  different  and  contra- 
dictory reasons  assigned  for  the  adoption  of  the  episcopal  niode 
of  churcli  government  All  these  are  facts,  the  knowledge 
of  wliicli  may  he  obtained  by  recurring  to  the  various  editions 
of  the  book  of  discipline,  and  to  the  minutes  of  conference. 
Wliether  those  who  were  concerned  in  these  matters  were 
*'good"  or  bad,  "wise"  or  foolish  for  the  |)art  they  took  in  them, 
and  for  publistiing  the  accounts  as  they  stand,  alters  not  the  case. 
]V  will  surely  be  more  to  the  ciedit  of  the  writers,  who  ma}^ 
herv"after  undertake  the  "Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  and  it  will 
serve  as  a  more  substantial  "-defence"  to  the  "-fatliers"  them- 
selves, lo  disprove  those  facts,  and  demonstrate  by  documentary 
evidence  Jhat  the  statements  1  here  make,  are  w/i/r?te,  than  to  be 
wasting  timt*,  mivsleading  the  reader,  or  venting  their  malignity, 
by  commentinif  upon  my  opinion  respecting  Mr.  Asbury.  If  ever 
Mr.  E.  should  write  again,  he  is  requested  to  confine  himself  to 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  not  to  pass  over  in  silence  some  of  the 
most  material  parts  of  my  present  work,  as  he  has  done  many 
things  which  are  inserted  and  remain  unanswered,  in  my  Historj 
and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy. 

Having  taken  this  view  of  Mr.  Asbury's  sentiments  respect- 
ing church  governnjent,  his  principles,  and  the  probable  influ- 
ence which  they  had  in  the  adoption  of  the  episcopal  form  of 
govf  rnment,  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  those  letters  to  which 
I  made  reference  above  ;  as  Mr.  E.  with  a  dexterity  peculiar  to 
himself,  has  attempted  to  lessen  the  force  of  the  testimony  of 
some  ;  and  to  set  others  entirely  aside,  "  as  unentitled  to  one 
particle  ot  credit." 

1  he  first  is  a   letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Asbury,  and  is  dated 

"London,  .Sept.  20th,  1788. 

"There  is,  indeed,  a  wide  difference  between  the  relation  where- 
in you  stand  to  the  American  Methodists,  and  the  relation  w  here- 
in I  stand  to  all  the  Methodists.  You  are  the  elder  brother  of  the 
American  Methodists  ;  1  am,  under  God,  the  father  of  the  whole 
family.  Therefore,  I,  naturally,  care  for  you  all,  in  a  manner 
no  other  person  can  do.  Therefore,  I,  in  a  measure,  provide 
for  you  all  ;  for  tlie  supplies  which  Dr.  Coke  provides  for  you, 
he  couid  hot  provide,  were  it  not  for  me  :  were  it  not  that  I  not 
©nly  permit  him  to  collect,  but  support  him  in  so  doing^. 


But  in  one  point,  my  dear  brother,  T  am  a  little  afraid  both 
the  fleeter  and  yoii  dit'ter  iVom  me.  1  study  to  be  little,  you 
study  to  be  great  ;  1  creep,  you  strut  aloui^.  1  found  a  school, 
you  a  college.  Nay,  and  call  it  after  your  own  names  !  O  be- 
ware !  Do  not  seek  to  be  something  !  Let  me  be  nothing,  and 
.Christ  be  all  in  all. 

"  One  instance,  of  this  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great 
eoncern.  How  can  you,  how  daie  you,  sutler  yourself  to  be 
called  a  bishop?  I  shudder,  1  start  at  the  very  thougfit.  Men 
may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  1  am 
content  ;  but  they  shall  never,  by  my  consent  call  me  a  bishop  ! 
For  my  sake,  for  God  s  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to 
this.  Let  the  Presbyterians  do  what  they  please,  but  let  the 
Methodists  know  their  calling  better. 

"Thus,  my  dear  Franky,  1  have  told  you  all  that  is  in  my 
heart,  and  let  this,  when  I  am  no  more  seen,  bear  witness,  how 
sincerely  i  am  your  atiectionate  iriend  and  brother, 

John  Wesley.' 

Moore  s  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  2,  p   285. 

Respecting  this  letter,  which  Mr.  E.  has  been  careful  to  keep 
®ut  of  sight,  he  says,  "  Mr.  M'feiine,  indeed,  rejoices  over  it, 
as  one  who  has  found  great  spoil.  He  seems  delighted  with  it." 
Def.  p.  47.  To  this  1  reply,  it  is  a  fact,  that  1  am  ''delighted 
with  it,"  and  I  will  tell  Mr.  E.  why  I  am  so.  Fii^st.  Because  it 
has  afforded  my  mind  relief,  by  removing  doubts  and  dilHculiies, 
respecting  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church, 
under  which  I  had  laboured  for  several  years.  1  had  olien  read 
in  the  records  of  the  church,  that  Mr.  Wesley  recomrnendcd  the 
episcopal  form  oj  government ;  but  where  that  recommendation 
was  to  be  found,  I  could  not  tell,  it  is  affirmed,  also,  in  the 
book  of  minutes,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter  "will  atlord 
as  good  an  explanation  as  can  be  given  of  this  subject."  This 
letter  never  was,  to  me,  any  explanation  a^  all  ;  nor  did  it  con- 
tain one  single  reason,  why  the  episcopal  form  should  be  adopt- 
ed, in  preference  to  any  other  I,  theretore,  wished  to  obtain 
information  upon  the  subject,  and  this  letter  lia^  fully  satistied  my 
mind  that  there  never  was  any  "  recommendation"  or  "counsel" 
given  to  adopt  the  episcopal  form  of  church  government.  On 
account  of  the  s-atisfaction  1  have  derived  from  it,  1  "rejoice 
over  it  as  one  who  has  found  great  spoil  ;"  aud  have  made 
my  acknowledgments,  by  letter,  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Moore  for 
publishing  it,  aud  have  tnanked  God,  that  in  the  order  of  iiis 
providence,  a  document  of  so  much  importance,  which  had 
been  kept  secret  so  long,  has  at  last  been  brought  to  light. 

I  "rejoice  over  it,"  because  it  is  tiie  Truili  ;  and  Mr  E. 
knows,  that  it  is  affirmed  of  goodness,  "  it  rejoiceih  not  in  ini- 
quiiy,  but  it  rejoiceth  in  the  Truth."  From  his  censuje,  it  is 
evident  that  he  does  not  rejoice  ever  it.     That  he  is  sorry  it 


was  published  ;  and,  if  it  were  in  bis  power,  tbat  be  wouM 
hide  it  from  public  view.  And  wherefore  ?  What  has  the  "De- 
fence of  our  Fathers-'  to  dread  from  the  publication  of  Truth  ? 
We  know  who  has  said,  '  every  one,  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the 
light  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should  be  re- 
proved.'* 

1  do  "  rejoice  over  if."  because,  by  exposing^  the  truth,  it  is 
likely  to  break  the  power  of  despotism  in  the  church,  and  re- 
store to  the  injured  members,  their  liberties  and  their  rights. 
Wherever  this  letter  shall  be  read  and  duly  considered  I  think 
it  will  be  impossible  for  any  disinterested  man  to  believe,  that 
Methodist  epis(;opacy  is  of  VI r.  Wesley's  creating.  The  peo- 
ple will  see  by  it.  that  they  have  been  deceived  by  the  state- 
ments which  have  been  published.  I'hey  will  see  that  Mr. 
Wesley  never  recommended  never  approved  of  episcopacy, 
or  the  episcopal  form  of  government  for  the  Methodist  socie- 
ties in  America.  They  will  have  confirmation  of  what  the 
Rev.  Mr,  "^^oore,  Mr.  Wesley's  biogiapher  has  said,"  that  Mr. 
Wesley  never  gave  his  sanction  to  any  of  these  things  "  Find- 
ing, tliat  Dr.  Coke  "  tvent  farther  than  JMr.  JVesley  intended  " 
and  that  they  have  been  imposed  upon,  tliey  will  one  day  rise 
in  the  majesty  of  their  strength,  and  demand  representation : 
nor  will  tliey  rest  until  like  freemen  they  have  a  voice  per- 
sonally, or  by  their  representatives,  in  making  those  laws  by 
which  they  are  to  be  governed.  Believing  that  this  change 
would  be  for  the  happiness  of  the  present  and  future  genera- 
tions, I  "  rejoice  over  this  letter  as  one  who  has  found  great 
spoil." 

'•  This  letter  to  Mr.  A.sbury  contains  expressions  too  severe." 
Mr.  Asbury  very  fitly  denominated  it,  "«  hitler  fill :''  such  he 
found  it,  and  such  Mr.  E.  finds  it ;  the  very  sight  of  it  pro- 
duces nausea.  *But  why  are  the  expressions  "  too  severe  V^ 
They  are  not  too  severe  for  the  occasion,  as  the  event  showed. 
For  the  man  who  could  resist  the  entreaties  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
his  ■'  father."  his  benefactor,  his  "  friend,"  and  these  entrea- 
ties urged  too.  with  such  appeals  as  the  following,  "for  my 
sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,"  gave  proof  that  he 
was  willing  to  sacrifice  every  thing  for  the  title  of  bishop. 
They  are  not  "too  severe,''  in  the  apprehension  of  the  dangers 
the  parties  w^ere  in,  who  fronj  vanity  or  pride,  assumed  the 
title  of  bishop  Not  "  too  severe,''  for  having  departed  from 
the  instructions  which  had  been  given  'm  the  most  solemn  man- 
ner,''^ not  to  assume  the  title  of  bishop.  But  on  the  supposition 
that  Mr.  Wesley  -'recommended"  the  episcopal  form  of  gov- 
ernment, they  are  not  only  'too  severe,"  but  they  cannot  be 
defended  at  all.  On  such  a  supposition,  a  letter  containing 
such  expressions  as  are  to  be  found  in  this,  would  be  a  proof 
of  madness,  rather  than  of  a  sound  mind. 


97 

Mr.  E.  says,  I  have  ''  wholly  misrepresented  its  import." 
Wonderful  man  !  Prodigy  of  nature  !  wliere  shall  we  find  his 
fellow  :  for  it  seems  no  man  can  understand  the  most  plain  and 
simple  statement  but  himself.  Surely  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church  ought  to  pray  for  his  long  life,  lor  when  he  dies  wis- 
dom will  die  with  him  !  And  what  is  the  import  of  this  letter 
according  to  Mr.  E's  showing  ?  Why,  that  "  Air.  Wesley's 
sole  objection  to  the  term  bishop,  was  from  the  associations  ordi- 
narily connected  with  it  in  the  public  mind  in  England'''' !!!  Any 
man  who  reads  \ir.  Wesley's  letter,  and  can  believe  Mr.  E's 
assertion  is  not  to  be  reasoned  with.  But  1  have  no  idea 
that  there  will  be  many  found,  who  will  believe  it:  it  is  so 
repugnant  to  common  sense    that  it  defies  belief. 

The  next  to  be  noticed  is  Dr.  Coke's  letter  to  Mr.  Wesley, 
which  contains  tliis  sentence  :  "  Mr.  Brackenbury  informed  me 
at  Leeds,  that  he  saw  a  letter  in  London  from  Mr.  Ashury,  in 
which  he  observed,  that  he  would  not  receive  any  person  de- 
puted by  you,  to  tajce  any  part  of  the  superintendency  of  the 
woi'k  invested  in  him,  or  words  evidently  implying  so  much." 
And  upon  this  Mr.  E.  remarks  :  "  Mr.  Brackenbury  might  have 
been  mistaken''^ — again.  '^  how  easily  might  he  have  mistaken 
their  meaning,"  the  meaning  ot  the  expressions  in  the  letter. 
And  again,  ''Had  we  before  us  also  the  letter  of  Mr.  Asbury, 
to  which  Mr.  Brackenbury  alluded,  we  might  peihaps,  be  able 
to  show  some  equal  mistake.  We  object,  therefore,  to  this 
parol,  third  handed  report  ;  and  unless  the  document  itself  be 
produced,  we  pi'otest  against  the  statement.''  Dei\  p.  53. 

Mr.  E.  must,  certainly,  be  a  pupil  of  the  celebrated  Italian, 
Theodore  Majocchi,  who  was  a  principal  witness  against  the 
late  queen  of  England,  when  on  her  trial.  This  man,  so  long- 
as  he  was  allowed  to  go  on,  and  tell  his  own  story,  would  go 
on  very  glibly  :  but  whenever  he  was  pinched  hy  the  questions 
of  the  queen's  counsel,  he  always  had  one  answer  to  make, 
"  J\'un  mi  recordi.'^^  Just  so  with  Mr.  E.  As  long  as  he  is  per- 
mitted to  tell  his  own  tale,  he  seems  to  do  pretty  well.  But 
whenever  he  is  pinched  by  some  unmanageable  document,  that 
intercepts  his  way,  like  a  cross  question  from  an  examining 
counsel,  then  he  has  one  uniform  way  of  disposing  of  it,  the 
writer  was  "  mistaken.''^  As  it  respects  the  case  before  us,  it 
was  not  only  Mr.  Brackenbury  who  was  "  viistaken,^^  but  Dr. 
Coke  must  have  been  '•'•  mistaken"  also.  Otheivvise,  Dr.  Coke 
urged  Mr.  Asbury's  opposition  to  receive  a  person  deputed  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  as  a  reason  why  Mr.  \-  esley  should  ordain  preach- 
ers for  America,  when  at  the  same  time,  he  knew  that  the  state-, 
ment  made  by  Mr.  Brackenbury  was  not  correct,  and  that  he 
"  vA'as  mistaken,''''  in  the  meaning  he  attached  to  the  words  in  the 
letter.  How  far  this  diliers  from  using  deceit,  or  uttering  a 
falsehood,  1  will  leave  the  reader  to  judge. 
7 


98 

"  In  another  lefler,"  says  Mr.  E.  "  dated  October  31,  1789, 
Mr,  M'Caiiie  represents  Mr.  Wesley  as  saying  of  Mr.  Asbury, 
*  He  flatly  refused  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat  in  the  cliaracter  I 
sent  him.'  Now  this  could  not  have  been."  Def.  p.  53.  This 
is  not  my  representation,  the  words  are  Mr.  Wesley's  own. 
And  as  for  the  phrase,  "  Now  this  could  not  have  been,"  it  is 
only  another  way  of  expressing  the  old  answer,  "  he  was  mis- 
takenP  So  then  Mr.  Wesley  was  "  mistaken."  Dr.  Coke  was 
"mistaken."  Mr.  Brackenbury  was  "mistaken."  Bishop  White 
was  "  mistaken."  Every  body  is  "  mistaken"  except  Mr.  Emo- 
ry !  What  excessive  modesty,  or  rather,  what  presumptive  arro- 
gance. I  shall  now  present  the  reader  with  this  letter,  and  he 
may  judge  for  himself,  who  is  mistaken. 

''  London,  October  31,  1789. 
"  My  dear  Brother, — The  point  you  desire  my  thoughts  upon, 
is  doubtless  of  no  common  importance.  And  I  will  give  you 
my  settled  thoughts  concerning  it  without  the  least  disguise  or 
reserve.  Indeed,  this  has  been  always  my  manner  of  speaking 
when  I  speak  of  the  thi.igs  of  God.  It  should  be  so  now  in 
particular,  as  these  may  piobably  be  the  last  words  that  you 
will  receive  from  me. 

It  pleased  God  sixty  years  ago,  by  me,  to  awaken  and  join  to- 
gether, a  little  company  m  London,  whence  they  spread  through- 
out the  land.  Some  time  after,  I  was  much  importuned  to  send 
some  of  my  children  to  America,  to  which  I  cheerfully  consent- 
ed. God  prospeied  their  labours  :  but  they  and  their  children 
still  esteemed  themselves  one  family,  no  otherwise  divided, 
than  as  Methodists  on  one  side  of  the  Thames  are  divided  from 
the  other.  I  was  therefore,  a  little  surprized  when  /  received 
some  letters  from  Mr.  ^isbury,  affirming  thai  no  person  in  Europe 
knew  hotv  to  direct  those  m  rdnierica.  Soon  alter,  he  flatly  refused 
to  leceive  Mr.  W  hatcoat  in  the  character  1  sent  him. 

He  told  George  Shadlord,  'Mr.  Wesley  and  I  are  like  Caesar 
and  i'ompey — he  will  bear  no  equal,  and  I  will  bear  no  superior.' 
And  accordingly  he  quietly  sat  by,  until  his  friends,  by  common 
consent,  voted  my  name  out  of  the  American  minutes.  This  com- 
pleted the  matter,  and  shewed  he  had  no  connexion  with  me." 
"But  how  happens  it"  says  Mr.  E.  '-that  Mr.  M'Caine  has  told 
us  nothing  more  about  this  letter.?  Why  did  lie  not  state  to 
whom  it  was  written,  and  from  what  autliorily  he  received  ii  ?" 
Strange  questioiis,  indeed,  coming  from  a  man  who  would  v\ish 
to  be  understood  as  not  intending  to  deceive.  And  who  in  the 
course  of  two  sentences  adds,  ''The  documents  in  proof  of  all 
this  are  in  our  possession.''''  Def  p.  54.  Did  not  Mr.  E.  kiiow, 
then,  where  1  obtained  it  ?  Did  he  not  know,  from  what  au- 
thority I  received  it.?  The  documents  in  his  "possession"  told 
him  all  this,  and  ihey  told  him  muck  more  which  he  \\as  very 
willing  to  keep  back.     It  was  not,  therefore,  to  obtain  informa- 


99 

tion  upon  those  points  that  Mr.  E.  proposed  his  questions ;  for 
the  "documents,"  giving  all  the  information  he  called  for,  he 
tells  us,  he  had  "in  his  possession."  But  it  was  for  the  purpose 
of  conveying  an  inuendo,  that  I  forged  or  fabricated  this  "noted 
letter,"  a  charge  of  which,  he  had  too  much  cunning  openly  to 
make  ?  Perhaj)s  he  thought  a  few  intervening  lines  between  the 
name  of  "Mr.  M'Caine,"  and  the  terms  "corruption  and  fabrica- 
tion," would  not  present  an  obstacle  of  such  magnitude,  as  that 
the  sharp  sighted  reader  would  not  perceive  the  intended  con- 
nexion between  the  name  and  the  thing.  "The  aforesaid  noted 
letter  bears  on  the  face  of  it  marks  of  corruption  or  of  fabrica- 
tion. And  until  better  authority  is  produced  for  it,  or  the  docu- 
ment itself,  we  hold  it  unentitled  to  one  particle  of  credit." 

As  Mr.  E.  pronounces  this  letter  to  be  a  forgery  "bearing  on 
the  face  of  it  marks  of  corruption  or  of  fabrication,"  and  "holds 
it  unentitled  to  one  particle  of  credit,"  I  should  like  very  much, 
to  have  an  opportunity  to  ask  him  a  (ew  questions  respecting 
this  letter  under  oath,  in  a  court  of  justice.  I  am  very  much 
mistaken  it  1  would  not  extort  from  him,  a  very  different  ver- 
dict, from  that  u  liich  he  has  recorded  above.  But  as  I  shall  never 
have  that  opportunity,  I  shall  go  on,  and  produce  "better  au- 
thority" for  its  authenticity,  than  he  can  for  its  "corruption  or 
fabrication." 

First.  This  "noted  letter"  was  published  by  Rev.  Wm  Ham- 
melt,  in  his  controversy  with  Rev.  Thomas  Moriell,  in  Charles- 
ton, South-Carolina,  in  1192.  And  I  never  heard  that  Mr.  Mor- 
rell  doubted  its  authenticity.  If  Mr.  E.  believed  that  it  was  forg- 
ed, it  was  a  very  easy  matter  for  him  to  write  to  Mr.  Morrell  in 
Elizabeth-Town,  New-Jersey  ;  and  if  Mr.  Morrell  pronounced 
it  a  forgery,  Mr.  E.  could  publish  that  certificate,  as  he  did  the 
certificate  of  the  same  gentleman,  respecting  the  address  to  ge- 
neral Washington.  Secondly.  From  a  mamcscript-note  in  Mr. 
Hammett's  pamphlet,  now  lying  before  me,  1  find  that  this  "noted 
letter '  was  addressed  to  Rev.  Beverly  Allen,  formerly  a  very 
distinguished  Methodist  preacher  in  the  southern  States. 
Whether  this  was  the  case  or  not;  or  by  whom  that  note  was 
written,  I  do  not  know.  Thirdly.  In  a  printed  note  in  said  pam- 
phlet, page  23,  Mr.  Hammett  says,  "When  the  first  edition  of 
this  pamphlet  came  from  the  press,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper,  (resi- 
dent minister  in  the  M.  E.  church)  called  on  me  to  see  the  ori- 
ginal; and  was  fully  convinced,  it  was  Mr.  W^esley's  own  hand 
writing  and  sentiments,  as  he  corresponded  with  him,  before  his 
death,  some  time.'*  If  this  was  the  Rev.  Ezk.  Cooper,  lie  was  al 
Mr.  E's  elbow  when  he  was  writing  his  "Defence  of  our  Fa- 
thers:" It  is  therefore  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  he  would 
inquire  of  Mr.  Cooper,  if  Mr.  Hammett's  statement  was  true  f 
If  he  ever  saw  this  "noted  letter'.?  and  if  the  "handwriting  was 
Mr.  Wesley's".!*  If  Mr.  Cooper  was  at  a  distance,  Mr.  E.  coul«l 


100 

obtain  information  upon  these  points  by  letter.  If  he  neglected 
to  take  this  step,  he  is  extremely  culpable.  But  if  he  did  in  any 
vav,  come  at  the  knowledge  of  the  authenticity  of  the  above 
Jetter — if  he  did  know,  when  he  wrote  his  "Defeiice  of  our  Fa- 
thers," (and  I  believe  he  did)  that  what  Mr.  Hammett  said  re- 
specting it,  was  true,  tlien  the  community  is  left  to  judge  of  Mr.. 
E's  truth  and  integrity  for  having  said  that  this  "noted  letter 
bears  3n  its  lace  the  marks  of  corruption  or  of  fabrication." 
Fourthly.  Mr.  Asbury  says,  respecting  this  letter,  "Saturday 
24th  I  attended  quarterly  meeting  at  the  widow  Flint's.  Here  I 
had  the  first  sight  of  Mr.  Hammett's  and  brother  Morrell'^  at- 
tacks on  each  other;  or  rather  Mr.  Hammett's  against  the  Me- 
thodists, and  brother  Moriell's  reply.  Had  brother  M.  known 
more,   he  would  have  replied  better.     Mr.  H's  quotation  of  a 

clause  in  my  confidential  letter  to  brother  S d  (Shadford)  is 

Dot  altogether  just."  Journals,  Vol.  2.  p.  131.  Now  what  is 
there  here  to  prove  ''corruption  or  fabrication.'"'  Does  not  Mr. 
Asbury  acknowledge  that  ne  had  seen  Mr.  Hammett's  pamphlet 
in  which  this  letter  was  published  .?  Does  he  not  acknowledge 
that  he  had  read  this  letter.-*  Does  he  not  admit  its  authenticity 
by  referring  to  it  without  any  expression  of  doubt  or  denial.? 
Does  he  not  admit  it  to  be  froni  Mr.  Wesley,  by  acknowledging 
the  truth  of  the  "quotation  of  a  clause  in  his  confidential  letter,''^ 
with  only  a  small  qualification  "it  was  not  alt ogvtker just.''''  And 
yet  Mr.  E.says  "this  noted  letter-  bears  on.the  face  of  it  the  marks 
of  corruption  or  of  fabrication  "!!  Fifthly.  In  one  of  Mr.  Asbu- 
ry's  letters  dated  August  6th  18*  6,  now  before  me  he  says,  "On 
the  momentous  matter  you  write,  I  must  be  prudent.  I  have 
sutiered  by  a  change  of  things  with  Mr.  Wesley.  When  it  \\as 
thoughc  some  persons  should  come  from  England  to  preside, 
George  Shadiord  \\as  in  contemplation.-  1  wrote  to  him,  and  it 
was  applied  to  Mr.  Wesley;  what  a  mistake".''  Here  is  farther 
testimony  from  Mr.  Asbury;  and  does  he  deny  the  authenticity 
of  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  which  contains  the  expressions  he  wrote 
to  George  .Sba  Iford?  He  does  not.  Does  he  deny  having  written 
these  words.''  He  does  not.  He  admits  he  wrote  them;  but  says, 
tht-y  were  "applied  to  Mr.  Wesley''  by  "mistake."  And  yet 
Mr.  E.  v\ould  pronouce  this  "noted  letter"  a  forgery,  "unentitled 
to  one  |)article  of  credit.''  It  may  agree  with  the  principles  and 
suit  the  interests  of  some  little  petty  fogging  village  lawyer,  who 
regards  neither  truth  nor  justice,  so  that  he  gets  his  lee,  to  at- 
tempt to  set  aside  some  important  document,  as  unentitled  to  one 
particle  of  credit :  but  for  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  resort  to 
such  stratagems,  is  enough,  to  make,  if  possible,  an  angel  v\  eep. 
Having  disposed  of  these  letters,  I  must  detain  the  readei-,  a 
few  moments,  to  notice  a  short  paragraph  which  i*eads  thus. 
"Alas  !  what  a  friend  have  the  venerated  dead  found  in  Mr. 
M'Caine  !  He  has  a  great  veneration  for  their  memory  !  Yet 


101 

while  he  salutes,  he  stabs  them,  fie  kisses,  and  straightway 
leads  them  to  be  cruoilied."  Def.  p  50.  A.s  Mr.  E.  has  com- 
paied  me  to  two  of  the  worst  characters  in  sacred  or  profane 
history,  and  has  imputed  to  me  crimes  the  most  base  and  infa- 
mous, I  must  be  allowed  to  say  a  few  words  in  reply. 

1.  Mr  E.  in  his  preface  informed  his  readers,  that ''in  pre- 
paring this  defence,  the  Divine  assistance  has  been  asked — in 
sending  it  abroad,  the  Divine  blessing  is  now  implored."  Can  tiie 
pious  reader  believe  one  word  of  what  is  here  stated  ?  Can  he 
bi'lieve  that  Mr.  E.  asked  and  obtained  the  Divine  assistance  to 
write  a  book  containini^  such  a  passage?  Can  he  conceive  what 
kind  of  a  prayer  he  put  up  when  he  implored  the  Divine  blessing 
upon  this  sentence?  If  he  prayed  at  a!l,  there  is  no  instance  in  his- 
tory with  which  his  conduct  can  be  compared  with  more  justness 
than  with  tliat  of  lord  Verulani,  wlio  placing  his  inhdel  book  ia 
the  window  of  his  chamber,  kneeled  down  and  asked  God  to 
grant  his  blessing  to  a  work,  written  expressly  to  prove  Revela- 
tion to  be  a  lie. 

2.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  Scriptures,  need  not  be 
told,  that  the  persons  whom  Mr.  E.  had  in  his  eye,  when  he  wrote 
the  above  paragraph,  were  Joab  and  Judas:  and  that  their  crimes 
involve  treachery,  hypocrisy,  pertidy,  venality,  and  in  short, 
every  thing  that  is  mean  and  wicked.  Alas!  for  Mr.  E.  that  he 
should  have  alluded  to  either  .Joab  or  Judas.  He  is  the  last  man 
in  the  world  that  ought  to  have  mentioned  their  names,  or  glanced 
at  tiieir  conduct.  As  long  as  some  men  are  alive,  he  ought  to 
have  observed  silence  about  "saluting  and  stabbing — kissing  and 
crucifying."  I  shall  not,  however,  at  this  time,  otfer  either  spe- 
cification or  proof  that  these  charges  are  applicable  to  Mr.  E. 
himself.  This  I  shall  do  whenever  he  demands  it.  All  I  shall 
say  at  present  is,  that  not  a  syllable  of  what  he  has  said  will  ap- 
ply to  me. 

3.  As  the  case  of  the  apostate  Judas  has  been  introduced,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  notice,  first  his  crime, — next  his  punishment. 
His  crime  consisted  of  covetousness  ;  and  this  may  have  had  its 
origin  and  consummation,  in  his  carrying  the  bag.  In  perfidy; 
he  betrayed  his  friend.  In  hypocrisy;  he  saluted  that  friend 
Willi  a  kiss.  In  venality;  he  sold  him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 
If  the  opinion  of  some  men  be  correct,  Judas  thought  that  Jesus 
would  have  delivered  himself,  by  a  miracle,  from  the  hands  of 
his  enemies,  and  that  he  would,  in  that  case,  not  only  have  re- 
tained his  office,  but  would  have  had  the  purchase  money,  clear 
gains.  If  this  was  his  cool,  calculating  cunning,  the  event  shows 
how  much  he  was  mistaken.  His  punishment  consisted  in  the 
loss  of  the  friendship  of  the  Saviour,  and  of  the  Saviour's  friends. 
In  the  loss  of  his  bishoprick— in  the  loss  of  his  chaiacter— in  the 
loss  of  his  peace  of  mind— in  the  loss  of  a  good  conscience— in 
the  loss  of  his  life— in  the  loss  of  his  soul— iu  the  loss  of  heaven. 


i02 

Would  it  be  amiss,  therefore,  for  some  men  to  think  of  the  crime 
and  punishment  of  Judas  ?    1  think  not.     For,  to  confine  my  re= 
marks  to  the  subject  which  has  agitated  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church,  some  have  been  known,  and  others  have  been  reported, 
to  have  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  reform.     Some  of  these 
have  composed  verses  lampooning  the  government  of  the  church, 
and  have  sung  or  repeated  those  verses  in  different  parts  of 
their  circuits.  Some  have  fearlessly  advocated  reform  in  the  ge- 
neral conference.     Some  have  written  and  published  their  senti- 
ments on  the  same  subject.  Some  have  boldly  contended  for  the 
rights  of  the  people  in  the  presence  of,  and  even  against  the 
bishops.     Whilst  others  have  declared  themselves  on  the  same 
side  of  the  question  in  conversation  with  the  private  members. 
And  what  then  .''    It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  these  very  men 
have  changed,   or  have  acted  as  if  they  had  changed  their  prin- 
ciples. Now  I  would  explicitly  say,  that  1  respect  the  man  who 
has  an  opinion  of  his  own,  and  acts  consistently  with  that  opin- 
ion; whether  he  agrees  with  me,  in  sentiment,  or  not.  And,  that 
I  commend  the  man  who  renounces  an  erroneous  opinion,  as  soon 
as  he  discovers  that  opinion  to  be  erroneous.     I  do  not  say  a 
word,  therefore,  against  either  of  these  classes;  my  remarks  are 
intented  solely  and  exlusively,  for  men  of  a  different  description. 
For  men  who  change  their  principles  with  their  circuits;  as  if  the 
nature  of  truth  changed  with  the  quantum  of  their  stipport.    It  is 
against  these  apostate^'  from  principle,  I  write.  Against  men  who 
feel  as  if  they  were  in  the' very  precincts  of  pauperism  ;  and  al- 
though "Divinely  authorised"  as  they  say,  are  at  a  loss  to  de- 
termine whether  to  preach  the  gospel,  or  follow  some  other  pro- 
fession.  Against  men  who  seem  to  have  labelled  themselves  with 
the  inscription   to  be  seen  on  empty  iiouses,  "To  Let:"  and 
whose  inquiry  is,  in  the  language  of  Judas,  "what  will  you  give 
me,  and  I  will  deliver  him  unto  you"  Where  is  the  faith  of  these 
men  that  they  cannot  trust  God  .''    Where  is  their  consistency  of 
character  as  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ?    Where  is  their  inde- 
pendence and  nobleness  of  mint!  as  men?  WHio  can  respect  them? 
W  ho  will  place  confidence  in  them  ?    Such  ought  to  rcilect  on 
the  cases  of  those,  in  the  New  Testament,  who  were  inclined  to 
traffick   in  things  pertaining  to  Uod.     Simon  Magus  offered  to 
purchase  the  power  to  impart  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  Judas  Is- 
cariot  sold  his  Saviour  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver.     The  fate  of. 
these  individuals  admonish  all  of  the  evil  and  danger  of  either 
buying  or  selling  the  truth,  for  the  sake  of  "tilthy  lucre"    From 
their  history,  we  may  learn,  that  the  case  of  him  who  receiveSy 
and  of  him  who  gives  a  price  for  principle  is  alike  hopeless.  That 
although,  Peter,  who  denied   his  Lord  and  Master,  with  oaths 
and  curses,  afterwards  found  acceptance  with  the  Saviour,  Judas 
did  not.  And  that  there  is  no  ground  to  hope  for  the  salvaiion  of 


I 


103 

any  who  would  basely  make  merchandise  of  grace,  or  sacrifice 
truth  for  gain. 

— qO© — 

Section  X. —  Testimonies  of  English  Methodists. 

What  are  the  "  testimonies  of  the  Eni^lish  Methodists"? 
They  allow  that  "  Mr.  VVesJey  established  the  validity  of  pres- 
byterian  ordination."  And  Mr.  E.  adds,  "  who  ever  disjjuted 
this  .!"'  As  he  admits  this  point,  it  may  be  necessary  to  ascertaia 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "presbyterian  ordination."  I.  It  may 
mean  such  an  ordination  as  the  presbyterians  practise  ;  in 
that  case  only  one  order  of  ministers  is  recognised.  This 
parity  of  ministers  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  Wesley's  views,  for 
he  said  there  were  two  orders^  presbyters  and  deacons.  2.  Or  it 
may  mean,  ordination  by  the  bands  of  presbyters  alone,  as  con- 
tradistinguished from  ordination  by  a  tliird  order  of  ministers 
called  bishops.  Among  presbyterians  no  higber  order  is  acknow- 
ledged than  that  of  a  presbyter  ;  nor  can  presbyters  create  a 
higher  order  than  themselves,  for  no  stream  can  rise  higber  than 
its  head,  spring,  or  fountain.  In  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  have 
but  two  orders  of  ministers,  presbyters  and  deacons,  which  per- 
fectly harmonizes  with  Mr.  Wesley's  views.  With  this  explana- 
tion of  a  preshyterian  ordination,  ivith  which  the  practice  of  the 
English  Methodists,  who  have  no  bishops,  corresponds,  their  tess- 
timony  is  adverse  to  the  claims  of  Methodist  episcopacy. 

2.  Mr.  E.  has  not  forgotten  to  let  his  readers  know,  that  he 
was  at  "the  British  conference  held  in  Liverpool  in  1 320,* 
and  that  he  heard  the  profoundly  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and 
that  most  able  and  eloqueni  divine,  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson, 
express  themselves  publicly  before  the  conference,  in  relation 
lO  our  episcopacy,  to  the  same  effect,  as  a  true,  actual,  scriptural 
episcopacy  of  the  most  genuine  and  apostolical  character."  Def. 
p.  48.  All  this  the  reader  is  to  take  upon  Mr.  E's  ipse  dixit,  and 
take  it  just  as  he  gives  it  ;  because,  although  Mr.  Wesley,  Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Brackenbury,  bishop  White,  and  a  thousand  others 
may  "  mistake,"  Mr.  E.  cannot.  "  But  how  happens  it"  that 
these  "  profoundly  learned"  and  "  eloquent''  gentlemen,  did  not 

*  The  public  were  informed  of  the  same  fact,  by  the  followini''  notice  in 
a  Canada  paper  "  At  a  meetin;4^  of  the  stewards  and  leaders  of  the  Wrs- 
lEYAjf  Methotiist  Society,  held  in  ECing'Slon  this  day — It  w.is  resolved  that 
a  remonstrance  be  sent'  to  the  British  .Missionary  Commiiife,  ag-ainst  their 
late  decision,  relaiive  to  the  withdrawin:^  their  Missionary  from  tliis  place, 
and  that  the  sense  of  the  public  be  obtained  by  receiving' signatures  to  a 
petition  for  the  cnutiituance  of  a  British  Mission ttry  herr.  This  is  on  the 
presum[)tion,  that  inisra/neMntationfi  have  been  made  to  tiie  committee,  by, 
the  Amnricun  delegate  Tiie  particulars  of  which  on  their  arrival,  will  be 
laid  before  the  puiilic.  As  British  subjects,  we  are  resolved  to  supjjoit  a 
British  Missionary.  Ky  order,  N.   M'LIiO!),  Scc'ry." 

Kingston,  Nov."  6lh,  1820. 


104 

define  our  "  episcopacy  !"  I  suspect  they  did  not  use  the 
term  *' episcopacy"  in  its  popular  acceptation,  as  an  epis- 
copacv  of  the  third  order  ;  such  an  "  episcopacy"  as  is  in  the 
"  church  of  England."  If  these  learned  and  eloquent  gentle- 
men had  used  the  term  in  that  sense,  they  would  not  have  found 
it  necessary  to  qualify  (he  term,  by  employing  all  the  adjunctive 
epithets,  which  Mr.  E.  says,  they  connected  with  it.  They 
must,  therefore,  have  meant,  that  "  our  episcopacy"  is  such  an 
cpisropacy  as  Mr.  Wesley  explained  in  his  Notes  on  the  New- 
Testament  already  quoted  ;  and  such  as  Lord  King  laid  down, 
where  presbyters  and  bishops  are  the  same  order.  In  that  case, 
*'  the  testimonies  of  the  English  V^ethodists"  are  in  favor  of  my 
position,  and  opposed  to  the  claims  of  "our  episcopacy." 

3.  At  the  otganization  of  the  church,  the  preachers  assumed 
the  title  "  the  Methodist  e[)iscopal  church  :''  and  down  to  the 
present  time,  it  has  been  asserted,  Mr.  Wesley  recommended 
the  episcopal  form  of  government.  This  assertion  I  have  de- 
nied ;  and  among  other  reasons  tor  my  opinion,  1  offer  this  as 
one  :  "  there  exists  no  document  in  which  the  words  Methodist 
episcopal  church,  tvere  ever  written  by  JMr.  Wesley'*'*  Althongh 
nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  produced,  yet  Mr.  E.  claims  the 
"  testimonies  of  the  English  Methodists"  in  favor  of  the  title,  and 
in  support  of  "our  episcopacy.''     Let  us  see  some  of  the  proofs. 

In  the  English  Magazine  for  1809,  there  is  a  likeness  of  Mr. 
Asbury,  taken  by  the  direction  of  the  British  conference,  which 
must  be  considered  as  an  official  act,  with  this  inscription  : 
"  Mr.  Francis  Asbury,  General  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist 
societies  in  the  United  States  of  America."  Two  things  may 
be  noticed  here.  I.  Mr.  Asbury  is  not  styled  a  "  bishop,"  but 
a  '■'' general  superintendent^''  2.  The  societies  are  not  denomi- 
nated the  "  Methodist  episcopal  church  ;"  but,  simply,  the 
"  Methodist  societies."  In  the  Magazine  for  ]S-^2  there  is  a 
print  of  Mr.  Emory  himself,  taken  by  order  of  the  British  con- 
ference. This  print  bears  this  in'5cri[)t'on  :  "  Rev.  John  Emory, 
Repiesentative  from  the  i\merican  conference  of  the  people  called 
Methodists,  to  the  English  conference,  1830.'*  What  makes 
the  omission  of  the  ti'le  the  "  Methodist  episcopal  church"  the 
more  remarkable  in  this  ca«e  is,  that  "  at  the  reque.st  of  the 
conference''  Mr.  E.  furnished  a  copy  of  the  sermon  preached 
before  that  body,  with  the  following  heading,  "  T!ie  substance 
of  a  Sermon  preached  in  Liverpool  on  the  30th  of  July,  1820, 
before  the  conference  of  the  Ministers  late  in  connexion  witli 
Rev.  John  Wesley.  By  John  Eimoiiy  ;  the  Representative  of 
the  General  confin-encc  of  the  J\felhodist  episcopal  church,  in 
America."  And  also,  in  his  note  of  inscription  to  the  confer- 
ence, he  styles  himself  "  the  Representative  of  the  General 
conference  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church.''''  But  although 
he  was  thus  particidar  to  give  the  title,  the  "  Methodist  episco- 


105 

pal  church  "  twice,  and  even  to  place  it  in  capital  letters,  all 
would  not  do.  The  Englisli  coiiterence  would  not  coinbuie 
with  I  lie  Ameiican  representative  to  acknowledge  the  title. 

4.    As    it   respects  the   case  of  the    pictures,  it  may  be  sup- 
posed that  the  omission,  in  the  inscription,  was  a  blunder  of  the 
'artist,  and  that  the   conference  was  not  answerable  for  bis  mis- 
take.   But  no  such  excuse  can  be  pleaded  or  allowed  tor  olhcial 
documents  emanating  from  the  conference,  in  their   olhcial  ca- 
pacity, signed  by  their  president,   and   countersigned    by   llieir 
secretary.     The  first  of  these   documents,  or    addn-ssc'S  may 
be  found  in  the  British  Minutes   for  1796,  and  is  beaded  thus  : 
"  To  the  General  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists, 
in  America  :    signed  Thomas  Taylor,  president;   Samuel  Biad- 
burn.  secretary."     Having  assumed  the  title  "  the  Methodist 
episcopal    church,"    the    general   conference    might   have   leit 
themselves  justifiable  in  demanding  a  recognition  of  their  tille. 
They  might  have  insisted  on  the  fitness  of  such  a  recognition, 
and  have  found  instances  to  justify  its  propriety.    When  "  Lord 
Howe  addressed  a  letter  to  George  Washington,  Esquire,  the 
general  refused  to  receive   it,  as   it   did   not   acknowledge  the 
public  character  with   which   he  was   invested   by  Congress. 
Marshall's  Lite  of  Washington,   vol.2,   p.  420.     But,  although 
the   conference  received   the  address,  yet  they,  wtiose  duty  it 
was  Lo  direct  the  answer,  as  if  stung  by    the   indignity  oi'Jj'ed 
by  the  omission  of  the  tille  "  Methodist  episcopal   church,     or 
as  gently  reminding  their  British  brethren  of  their  mistake,  di- 
rected their  answer  in  the  same  manner,   "  To  the  general  con- 
ference of  the  people  czdled  Melhodists  in  Great  Britain."      1  bis 
answer  was  signed   by  "  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury. 
Here  1  would  remark,  that  the  British  conference  is  not  styled, 
by  themselves,  or  by    tiieir  brethren  of  the  Irish  conference, 
the  '-general    conference."     The   title  they  assume  is  simply, 
the  Biitish  conference.     To  have  added  therefore,  the    epithet 
*^  general,"  to  the  term  conference,  was,  to  say  the  least  ot    it, 
unnecessary.  ,.         , 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  object  of  those  who  airecled 
the  above    answer,  the  British  conference  were  not  to   be   (ti- 
verted  from  their  purpose  :  they  were  neither  to  be  i.atterecl 
nor  driven  to  adopt  the  title  the  »  Methodist  episcopal  church 
in  their  addresses.     For  in  the  next  year  they  sent  another  olti- 
cial  communicatioh,  directed  "  To  Mr.  Francis  Asbury,  and  all 
the  conferences  of  the   people  called  Methodists  in  America. 
See  the  Britisfi  minutes  for  1797.  r       i  •     d    " 

The  next  communication  they  sent  is  to  he  found  '»  y^eir 
minutes  for  1799,  the  tille  of  which  runs  thus  :  "  1  he  Address 
of  the  British  conference,  to  the  general  co.iference  in  Amj;'"^- 
ca."  And  in  1803,  they  sent  another  address  entitled,  1  he 
address  of  the  British  conference,  to  the  general  conference  ot 


106 

the.  Methodists  in  America"  In  1807  there  is  another,  "  The 
address  from  the  Biitish,  to  the  Meffiodist's  general  conference 
in  America  "  Besides  these,  the  British  conference  occasion- 
ally speaking  of  their  Irrethren  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  speak 
of  tliem,  on  their  minutes,  not  as  the  "  Methodist  episcopal 
church,"  but  as  "  the  Methodist  societies  in  the  United  States 
of  America" — "  The  American  Methodist  connexion  &c."  It 
is,  therefore,  a  singular  fact,  and  perhaps  but  little  Known,  that 
this  boasted  title,  the  "  Methodist  episcopal  church  ;"  and  this 
no  less  pompous  appellation  "  bishop,'' are  not  to  be  found  in 
these  Britisli  official  papers  :  nor  is  there  any  proof,  that  I  have 
been  able  to  find  that  either  of  these  titles  appears  in  their 
minutes,  any  more  than  they  do  in  Mr.  Wesley's  writings.  Suck 
are  the  "  testimonies  of  the  English  Methodists." 

Section  XI. — Dr.  Coke. 

Reserving  the  remarks  1  intend  to  make  upon  ihecaicses  which 
gave  rise  to  the  charges  preferred  against  Dr.  Coke,  in  the 
British  conference,  upon  his  return  to  England,  until  I  come  to 
the  section,  which  treats  of  the  "  Address  to  general  Washing- 
ton,'' I  shall  first  notice  those  charges  whh  their  punishment, — 
next,  the  delence  which  Mr.  E.  has  set  up. 

As  to  the  charges,  much  need  not  be  said  on  them  ;  as  Mr. 
E.  expressly  states,  that  "  an  address.was  diavvn  up,  and  signed 
by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  in  behalf  of  the  American  Metiiod- 
ists,  and  presented  *tO  Gen.  Washington.''  Def  p.  60.  And  on 
the  next  page  he  says,  "  a  copy  of  this  address  was  introduced 
into  the  British  conference,  as  a  ground  of  censure  against  the 
doctor." — "  Dr.  Coke  heard  these  charges  urged  against  him  in 
PROFOUND  SILENCE."  if  there  be  no  "  mystery"  about  this 
address,  there  is,  certainly,  something  connected  with  it,  that  I 
do  not  yet  fully  understand.  I  should  like  to  know,  if  thera 
were  two  addresses,  drawn  up  and  presented,  by  Di'.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbuiy,  to  general  Washington  ?  The  one  in  1785,  when 
the  general  was  a  private  citizen;  the  other  in  1789,  when  he 
was  president  of  the  American  Congress  .''  As  Mr.  E.  accord- 
ing to  his  own  statement,  has  "  examined  this  subject  minutely,'' 
he  ouglit  to  have  told  us  wiiether  there  were  two  addresses,  or 
wheilier  there  was  only  one  If  there  were  two,  I  would  like  to 
know  wherein  did  they  differ  in  their  nature,  and  what  were  the 
objects  intended  to  be  elfected  by  each  ?  I  can  find,  however, 
no  evidence  that  there  were  two  :  Mr.  E.  therefore,  must  clear 
up  this  matter. 

Secondly.  1  should  like  to  know  what  was  the  date  of  tlie 
address,  ''  a  copy  of  whicti"  Mr.  E.  says,  "  was  introduced  into 
the  British  conference  as  a  ground  of  censure  against  the  doc- 
toi,"     Tiiis  is  an  important  auUter,  and  should  be  well  remem- 


107 

bered.  But,  says  Mr.  E.  "  Mr.  Drew  seems  indeed  to  have 
been  left  in  peculiar  embarrassment,  with  regard  to  dates,  in 
consequence  of  the  death  of  Dr.  Coke  at  sea,  before  he  arranged 
bis  papers  in  chronological  order."  Def.  p.  81.  On  this  1  re- 
mark, 1.  It  is  not  likely,  that  Dr.  Coke,  who  had  made  all  the 
previous  and  necessary  arrangements  for  the  publication  of  iiis 
papers,  selecting  his  biographer,  and  placing  the  papers  in  his 
possession,  would  neglect  the  chronological  arrangement  of 
those  papers  ;  especially,  as  he  was,  at  that  time,  an  old  man, 
was  going  a  voyage  to  India,  expected  to  be  gone  a  long  time, 
and  was  fully  sensible  of  the  uncertainty  of  life.  To  me,  the 
thing  is  very  improbable.  2.  But,  for  argument  sake,  admitting 
it  to  be  a  fact,  how  could  I  be  expected  to  fix  dates  to  those 
documents,  where  dates  were  wanting,  if  Mr.  Drew  was  "  em- 
barrassed," with  all  Dr  Coke's  papers  before  his  eyes  ?  And 
if  he  erred  on  that  point,  how  can  I  be  blamed  for  copying  him, 
unless  I  had  the  means  of  correcting  his  mistakes,  which  I  had 
not.  But  to  return  to  dates,  Mr.  E.  does  not  gainsay,  that  this 
address  was  presented  to  general  Washington  in  '85  ;  for  he 
assures  us  it  "  was  introduced  into  the  British  conference  upon 
the  doctor's  return  to  England  in  that  year."  And  yet,  in  .Mr. 
Sparks's  letter,  that  gentleman  says,  "It  is  not  likely  that  any 
address  from  any  quarter  was  presented  to  Washington  in  17S5. 
I  have  never  seen  any  of  that  year.  He  was  then  a  private 
man,  wholly  employed  with  his  farms." 

Tliirdly  If  no  address  had  been  presented,  no  charge  could 
have  been  predicated  upon  such  an  address  :  consequently,  no 
punishment  could  have  been  inflicted.  But  Mr  E.  says  "such 
was  the  punishment,  then,  of  Dr.  Coke.  Such  the  cause  that  led 
to  it.  Such  the  profound  silence  with  which  he  heard  the 
charge."  Def  p.  6i.  I  ask,  now,  how  came  the  doctor  to  be  pun- 
ishedj  if  no  charge  was  preferred.''  And  how  came  the  charge  lo 
be  preferred,  if  no  address  was  presented  .-'  These  are  questions, 
whicli  Mr.  E.  will  have  to  answer  in  his  next,  as  he  has  "exa^ 
mined  this  subject  minutely." 

The  punisliment.  "It  was  finally  determined  that  the  name  of 
Dr.  Coke  should  be  omitted  in  ihe  minutes  for  the  succeeding 
year.''''  Def.  p.  61.  Although  this  statement  is  as  plain  as  language 
can  express  it,  yet  Sir.  E.  attempts  to  set  it  aside.  Hear  what 
he  says.  "At  this  very  conference  of  1785,  Dr.  Coke's  name  ap- 
pears in  the  Biitishminutes  in  London  &c."  Daf.  p.  43.  Let  the 
reader,  now,  mark  Mr.  E*s  disingcnuousness.  The  question  is  not, 
does  Dr.  Coke's  name  appear  on  the  minules  for  1785  :  but  does 
it  appear  on  tlie  minutes  for  the  "succeeding  year,"  which  is  not 
1785,  but  1786  ^  That  is  the  question.  I  affirmed  it  does  not 
appear  on  the  minutes  for  1786;  and  I  affirm  so  still.  But  Mr,  E. 
says,  "at  this  very  conference  of  1785  Dr.  Coke's  name  a[)pears 
on  those  minutes."    Heally;  this  is  very  cunning.  It  is  just  as  if  1 


108 

Iiad  said,  A.  B.  died  in  1786.  O  no,  says  Mr.  E.,  that  is  a  mis- 
take^ for  he  was  in  London,  in  1785  ! !  Mr.  E.  makes  another 
blunder;  for  in  speaking  of  Dr.  Coke's  Journals,  he  expresses 
himself  thus.  ''In  this  dedication,  Dr.  Coke  states,  that  he  had 
found  in  Mr.  Wesley  a  father  and  a  fiiend  for  thirteen  years.  If 
we  compare  this  with  the  period  at  which  Dr.  Coke  hecame 
connected  witli  Mr  Wesley,  which  was  between  Aug.  ITTG  and 
Aug.  1777,  it  will  just  bring  us  down  to  the  date  of  the  prelace; 
and  this  date,  too,  is  in  that  very  year  ;Conferenceyear)  in  which 
Dr  Coke's  name  was  left  off'  the  British  minutes.''''  Def  p.  69. 
Now  let  us  go  to  work  and  see  wiiat  we  can  make  out  of  this 
statement.  "Thirteen  years"  added  to  1777  will  give  1790.  So 
far  Mr.  E.  is  corred;  for  Dr.  Coke's  preface  to  his  Journals  is 
dated  '-Jan.  25,  1790.  '  Secondly.  Mr.  E.  says,  "this  date  ( 1790) 
is  the  very  year  in  which  Dr  Coke's  name  was  left  olf  the  Brit- 
ish minutes."  This  is  wrong.  For  his  name  stands  on  the  British 
minutes  in  1790.  It  was  left  otF  in  the  year  1786.  Thirdly.  Al- 
thouj^h  in  this  place  Mr.  E.  says,  "Dr.  Coke's  name  was  left  off 
the  British  minutes  in  1790,"  yet  he  contradicts  it  and  says  on 
page  43  "in  1790,  he  (Dr.  Coke)  was  again  stationed  in  London 
vyith  John  and  Charles  Wesley."  Fourthly.  Although  he  sta- 
tioned the  doctor  in  London  with  Charles  Wesley  in  1790, 
Charles  Wesley  had  been  dead,  at  that  time,  two  years  and  tour 
months.  So  much  for  Mr  E's  accuracy.  Fifthly.  On  the  sup- 
position that  no  address  was  drawn  up  and  presented  to  general 
Washington  in  1785  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury;  will  Mr.  E. 
tell  us,  what  was  the  nature  or  character  of  the  charges,  which 
were  preferred  against  Dr.  Coke,  in  the  British  conference,  that 
year.^  If  the  doctor  was  punished,  as  Mr.  E.  acknowledges  he 
was,  for  chaiges  which  were  preferred  against  him  at  that  con- 
ference, it  will  be  required  of  Mr.  E.  to  prove,  that  those  char- 
ges, and  this  punishment  had  no  connexion  with  the  organization 
of  the  church,  or  the  assumption  of  the  title  "Methodist  episco- 
pal church." 

The  next  thing  to  be  considered  is  the  defence  set  up  by  Mr. 
E.  He  complains  that  in  presenting  this  affair  from  Drew's 
Avork,  I  have  not  presented  "the  subject  fully  '  To  mend  what 
I  had  Sftoiled,  or  su|tply  what  1  had  omitted,  he  proposes  to  give 
"a  itw  fuller  extiacls  from  the  same  pages,  I'rom  which  Mr. 
M'Caine  took  his,  which  will  place  the  subject  in  the  fair  and 
candid  light,  in  which  it  was  regarded  by  Dr.  Coke's  more  mag- 
liaiiimous  biograplier."  Def  p.  60.  The  attention  of  the  reader 
is  particularly  requested  to  the  following  novel,  and  unprece- 
denled  manner  of  composing  this  defence;  which,  if  it  does  not 
discover  a  great  deal  oi  fairness  and  <rtU/i,  manifests,  at  least,  a 
great  deal  of  originality  and  cunning.  If  the  reader  will  take  Mr. 
E's  "Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  which  work  has  been  called  by 
the  seven  wise  men '■'■a  masterly  defence."  he  will  find  a  quotation, 


109 

or  thai  which  pnrports  to  be  a  quotation,  beginning  on  the  60th 
paie  witfi  these  words,  "It  is  well  known,"aiid  continued  to  the 
bottom  of  the  6 1  St  page.  Reference  is  then  made  to  "Drew's 
Life  of  Coke  pp.  102— I45r 

Whoever  examines  this  apparent  extract,  which,  in  Mr  E's 
book,  does  not  constitute  one  page  and  a  half,  and  which,  from 
the  face  of  it,  has  the  appearance  of  being  a  fa.r  and  unbroken 
quotation,  will  feel  himself  a  little  at  a  loss  to  conceive,  how 
Mr.  E  could  compress  the  contents  of  forty-four  octavo  pages, 
of  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  into  less  than  a  page  and  a  half  of  his 
own  book.  This  "mystery"  1  will  now  explain.  Mr.  E.  has  a 
newly  invented  mz7/,  (I  do  not  know  that  he  has  taken  out  a  pa- 
tent for  it,  or  that  he  thinks  it  necessary)  far  exceeding  the  "mi- 
raculous mill,"  tor  grinding  old  people  young;  a  picture  of  which 
I  can  recollect  to  have  seen,  when  I  was  boy.  Into  his  viill  Mr. 
E.  puts  forty-four  octavo  pages  of  "Drew's  Life  of  Coke.  '  And 
after  turning  the  crank  a  few  times,  a  beauiiful  fine  dust  is  pro- 
duced, which  after  he  has  bolted  and  sifled  it  sufficiently,  is  nice- 
ly put  up,  and  stamped  by  the  inspectors,  supeijine.  The  doc- 
tor  also  examines  it,  and  pronounces  it  to  be  not  only  excred- 
ingly  palatable,  but  very  wlioiesoinc  and  nutritious.  The  bolting 
apj)aratus  is  also  very  nice;  and  displays  a  great  deal  of  inge- 
nuity in  its  construction.  In  short,  taking  it  altogether,  there  is 
nothing  like  it  in  the  United  Stales  :  perhaps  not  in  the  world. 
To  be  a  little  more  particular,  and  with  a  view  of  explaining  the 
process  of  grinding,  Mr.  E.  begins  with  page  102  of  Drew's 
book,  and  selects  from  that  page  38  words.  Here,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  inform  the  reader,  that  these  38  words  do  not  follow 
one  aiiother  in  close  and  consecutive  order,  'i'he  first  line,  where 
the  quotation  begins,  furnishes  4  words,  then  a  whole  line  is 
omitted  and  the  quotation  is  continued.  It  may  be  proper,  also 
to  add,  iliat  the  other  quotations  are  made  in  the  same  way  :  a 
few  words  from  one  sentence,  and  a  ihw  from  another,  nor  is 
there  any  attention  pard  to  stops — nor  to  sentences — nor  to  para- 
graphs— nor  to  pages — nor  even  to  chapters.  The  first  part  of 
the  quotation,  being  part  of  the  6th  chajjter  ;  the  latter  part  of 
the  quotation  being  part  of  the  8th  chapter:  and  that  whenever 
a  word  comes  in  his  way,  which  does  not  suit  his  purpose,  or  is 
likely  to  injure  or  retard  the  milL  it  is  thrown  away,  and  another 
substituted.  Having  now  explained  the  process  of  grinding-,  I 
shall  go  on  with  th6  account  Theie  are  taken,  I  say,  from  liie 
102nd  page,  3S  words. — From  the  104th  page,  1.36  words, — 
Fiom  the  lOoih  page  55|-  words. — From  the  106th  page  116^ 
words. — From  the  144lh  page,  237  words — and  from  the  14oth 
page  27  woids.  What  the  reader  may  say,  of  Mv.  E.  and  his 
magiatl  mill,  1  know  not.  But  I  will  leave  him  to  giind  as  Ion"- 
as  he  lives,  nor  will  I  envy  him  the  praise  he  may  receive  for  his 
mechanical  genius  ;  nor  the  applause  he  may  obtain  for  his  sit- 
jjerjine  dust. 


no 

One  thing  more  deserves  notice.  In  composing  this  defence 
for  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  E.  has  placed  him  in  a  situation,  by  no  means 
enviable.  Perhaps  he  intended  to  pay  the  doctor  a  compliment, 
but  unfortunately  the  comparison  is  an  unhappy  one  The  sub- 
ject, to  which  Mr.  E.  refers,  I  would  suppose  to  be  Ithuriel's 
search  for  Satan  in  the  garden  of  Eden;  and  the  comparison,  is 
the  manner  in  which  the  doctor  bore  the  touch  of  Ithuriel's 
spear,  when  the  ciiarges  were  preferred  against  him,  in  the  Brit- 
ish conference. 

"So  saying-,  on  he  led  his  radiant  files 

Dazzling  the  moon  ,  these  to  the  bower  direct 

In  search  of  whom  they  sought;  him  there  they  found 

Squat  like  a  toad,  close  at  the  ear  of  Eve 

Assayin_a;'  by  his  devilish  artj  to  reach 

The  organs,  of  her  fancy 

Him  thus  intent,   Ithnriel  ivith  hi$  spear 

'Totiched  lightly;  for  no  falsehood  can  endure 

Touch  of  celestial  temper,  but  returns 

Of  force  to  its  own  likeness  :  up  he  starts 

Discovered  and  surprized  " 

Milton's  Paradise  Lost.  J\.  IV.  1  797  et  seq. 
Did  Mr.  E.  intend,  by  reference  to  the  above,  to  compare  doc- 
tor Coke  in  America,  to  Satan  in  the  garden  of  Eden  .-^  Did  he 
leave  it  to  be  interred,  that  the  doctor  had  practised  his  wily 
arts  here,  as  Satan  had  practised  his  "devilish  art"  there.-'  And 
that  when  found  out,  and  charged  with  these  practices,  in  the 
British  conference,  he  could  no  more  bear  the  touch  of  the  Spear 
Tn«//i,  than  Satan  could  the  touch  of  Ithuriel's  ''  That  as  Satan 
"started  up,  discovered  and  surpiized^'  so  the  doctor  heard  the 
charges  in  "profound  silence  V^  And  Mr.  E's  work  is  called 
a  "Defence  of  our  Fathers;"  and  Dr.  Bond  pronounces  the  work 
to  be  "an  able  defence!"  Query.  Does  Dr.  Bond  know  any  thing 
about  Itluiriels  spear. -*  \  doubt  it.  If  it  were  to  touch  him  per- 
haps he  would  feel  as  if  he  was  touched  with  a  red-hot  poker. 
Leaving  Mr.  E.  and  Dr.  Bond  to  clear  up  this  matter  for  the  sa- 
tisfaction of  the  seven  wise  tnen,  I  shall  proceed  to  the  consi- 
deration of  the  next  section. 

— <i©?s— 

Section  XII. — Methodist  Episcopacy. 

1  FIND  but  little  in  this  section  wortliy  of  remark,  tliat  has  not 
been  reviewed  already,  it  is  principally  made  up  of  extracts 
from  the  "notes  on  tlie  discipline,  prepared  by  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury,  at  the  request  of  the  general  conference  : "  and  con- 
tains comments  by  Mr.  E.  on  these  extracts..  It  ought  to  be 
known,  however,  that  these  "notes"  have  been  long  since  given 
to  the  moles  and  the  bats;  and  now,  it  is  a  rare  thing  to  see  a  copy 
of  the  book.  That  I  may  not  be  ttiought  to  pass  them  over  in 
silence,  I  shall  select  a  few  articles. 


Ill 

i.  "The  most  bigotted  devotees  to  religious  establishments  > 
(the  clergy  of  the  church  ol"  Rome  excepted)  arc  now  a!?hamed 
to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  apostolic,  uninterrupted  succession 
of  bishops."  Will  Mr.  E.  answer  the  following  questions.  Is 
not  the  "apostolic  and  uninterrupted  succession,"  the  very  foun- 
.dation  of  Jure  Divino  ?  If  these  subjects  diller,  let  him  say 
wherein  .''  Again,  what  is  the  difference  between  Jure  Divino, 
and  "Divine  Authority.'''  See  Mr,  Asbury's  Journals,  Vol  3. 
p.  168.  Wherein  does  "Divine  Authority''  dilfer  from  being 
"Divinely  authorised."  See  "Report  of  the  committee  on  peti- 
tions and  memorials.  Joun  Emory,  chairman,"  in  the  Christian 
Advocate  and  Journal  of  June  20.  182b.  And  how  can  any  of 
these  agree  with  "the  principles  of  the  laiu  of  nature.'*''  Def.  p.  7. 
JVole. 

2.  "Nor  must  we  omit  to  observe"  (speaking  of  primitive 
episcopacy)  'that  each  diocess  had  a  college  of  elders  or  pres- 
byters, in  which  the  bishop  presided."  Was  this  bishop  of  the 
same  order  as  his  brethren,  of  the  college  of  presbyters  ?  if  he 
was,  a  Methodist  bishop  diilers  from  a  primitive  bishop,  and 
IMethodist  episcopacy  is  very  different  from  primitive  episco- 
pacy. If  it  be  said  he  was  not,  1  deny  the  position  and  demand 
the  proof. 

3.  "  And  we  verily  believe,  that  if  our  episcopacy  should  at 
any  time,  through  tyrannical  or  immoral  conduct,  come  under 
the  severe  censure  of  the  general  conference,  the  members 
thereof  would  see  it  highly  for  the  glory  of  God,  to  preserve 
the  present  form,  and  only  change  the  men."  "  The  members 
of  the  general  conference"' might,  perhaps,  "  change  the  men,'* 
it  they  were  not  equally  inlertsled  in  playing  the  lyrant.  ^^\t- 
ncss  the  recent  persecutions  and  expulsions  in  Baltimore  and 
elsewhere  ;  and  the  approval  of  these  shameful  and  '■'•  tyrannical'^ 
proceedings  by  the  bisliops  and  the  general  conference. 

4.  '  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  have  no 
control  whatever  over  the  decisions  of  either  a  general  or  an  an- 
nual conference."  Dcf.  p.  64.  I  really  wonder  Mr.  E.  was  not 
ashamed  to  make  this  assertion,  considering  the  proceedings  at 
the  Winchester  conference,  in  which  J.  Soule  and  J.  Emory 
took  such  a  "spm/crf"  part.  The  following  extract  is  taken  fioni 
AJr.  E's  pamphlet,  ard  tlatly  contradicts  the  above  assertion. 
"  That  a  brother  but  j«sf  elected  to  the  episcopal  otfice,  and  not 
yet  ordained,  or  even  an  existing  bishop  in  fact,  wtiatever  regard 
ue  might  feel  for  them  personally,  shouid  thus,  by  a  strong 
hand  arrest  the  operation  of  resolutions  such  as  the  above,  p«sscrf 
after  long  and  solemn  debate  upon  tl-.eir  subject  mailer, — passed 
with  an  express  view  to  conciliation,  and  concurred  in,  not  ouiy 
by  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  general  conference,  but  by  two 
thirds  of  the  episcopacy  itself ! !  lyc."  VV  h(  n  Nir.  E.  wrote  his 
pamphlet  he  was  opposed  to  the  power  of  the  bishops  :  when  he 


112 

wrote  his  "  Defence  of  our  Fatliers"  he  was  a  hook  agent,  and 
had  received  a  few  votes  for  the  office  of  a  bishop.  "  God  for- 
bid that  men  should  not  learn  vvliile  they  live,  but  it  is  a  bad 
sign  wiieu  illumination  and  preferment  come  together." 

'-^^©— 

Section  XIII. —  Title  Bishop. 

If  reiteration  and  confident  assertion  will  do  any  thing  for 
Methodist  episcopacy,  it  will  be  under  great  obligations  to  Mr. 
E.  For,  altiiough  so  much  had  been  said  upon  the  subject  mat- 
ter of  this  section,  in  the  preceding  part  of  liis  book  ;  yet  the 
"title  bishop'^  must  be  honoured  with  one  whole  section  for  its 
special  use.  Its  hallowed  claims  must  not  be  polluted  by  being 
mixcQ  or  confounded  with  other  topics,  nor  its  honours  be  lost, 
or  buried  in  a  crowd.  And,  after  thus  signalizing  it,  by  such 
marks  of  respect,  what  is  there  in  the  whole  section  worth  no- 
ticing ?  Nothing  that  makes  for  Methodist  episcopacy  ;  but 
something  that  justifies  the  view  I  have  taken  of  that  subject. 
To  begin  with  the  definition  of  a  "bishop." 

1.  It  is  a  very  singular  fact,  though  it  cannot  be  considered 
as  a  proof'of  logical  acumen,  that  the  first  definition  in  Mr.  E's 
book  is  to  be  found  in  the  first  paragraph  of  this  section  :  and 
even  this  is  not  his  own.  We  are  indel)ted  for  it  to  the  quota- 
tion which  he  gives  from  Leigh's  Critica  Sacra.  The  reader 
may  remember,  that  I  complained,  more  than  once,  that  Mr.  E. 
did  not  define  the  subjects  in  dispute  ;  and  accounted  for  his  ne- 
glect on  this  princij)!e,  "  that  definition  would  be  destruction  to 
his  cause  "  That  the  reader  may  not  think  that  this  extract  from 
"  Leigh,"  clashes  with  what  I  said  formerly,  when  complain- 
in<r  of  his  neglect  to  define  his  subjects,  it  may  be  necessary  to 
remind  him,  that  I  said  Mr.  E.  no  where  defines,  what  he  calls 
"our  episcopacy,"  nor  tells  us  to  what  order  a  Alethodist  bishop 
belongs.  In  this  section  we  are  told,  in  general  terms,  what  a 
liishop  is,  viz.  "  an  overseer  :"  and  farther,  that  "  between  bish- 
op and  presbyter  there  is,  nevertheless,  this  ditference,  pres- 
byter is  the  name  of  an  order, — bishop  is  the  name  of  an  q^ce  in 
that  order."  To  this  definition  1  subscribe,  for  it  corresponds 
])recisely  with  my  views.  Will  Mr.  E.  subscribe  to  it  also  .'' 
Does  it  correspond  with  his  views.''  To  these  questions  let 
him  give  a  categorical  answer,  Yes  or  No.  If  the}  are  not  his 
senlimenis,  why  quote  the  definition,  unless  it  be  to  prove  it  er- 
roneous ?  If  they  are  his  sentiments,  why  represent  a  bishop 
as  of  the  third  order,  and  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  as 
having '■'■  three  orders  ?''"'  This  is  another  instance  of  his  disin- 
genuousness.  Will  Mr.  E.  say,  that  the  "  title  bishop"  in  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church  signifies  only  "  the  name  of  an 
oDice,"  and  not  the  name  of  an  "  order  V    Will  he  say  that  a 


113 

Methodist  bishop  is  of  the  same  "  order^'  that  all  the  elders  oi* 
presbyters  in  that  church,  are,  whether  they  be  local  or  travel- 
ling elders  ?  He  will  not.  For  his  book  was  written  to  prove 
the  contrary.  Such  a  statement,  as  the  parity  of  bishops  and 
presbyters,  would  not  accord  with  the  claims  he  sets  up  for 
those  bishops.  It  would  not  accord  with  what  he  has  said  re- 
specting the  abridgement  of  the  prayer  book,  and  the  offices 
for  ordination,  (t  would  not  accord  with  the  views  of  the 
bishops  themselves,  respecting  their  dignity,  prerogative,  pre- 
eminence, order,  it  would  not  accord  with  Mr.  Asbury's  sen- 
timents, that  a  bishop  is  a  distinct  order  from  and  superior  to  a 
presbyter.  N!r.  E.  knows  all  this,  and  yet  he  quotes  an  author 
who  says,  "  Presbyter  is  the  name  of  an  order,  bishop  is  the 
name  of  an  office  in  tkat  order"  as  if  he  would  apply  the  quotation 
to  a  JMethodist  bishop  ' ! 

2.  To  make  the  distinction  respecting  bishop  and  presbyter, 
or  office  and  order  plain  to  my  Methodist  readers,  let  me  suppose 
that  in  one  of  our  large  towns  or  cities  there  are  four  or  five 
elders  or  presbyters  stationed  for  one  year.  The  man,  whose 
name  stands  tirst  on  the  appointment,  is  denominated  the  preach- 
er in  charge  ;  because  he  has  the  charge  of  the  station.  This 
man  is  the  pastor,  overseer,  or  bishop  of  the  congregations, 
which  he  is  appointed  to  serve  :  and  it  is  in  this  sense,  and  in 
this  only,  as  having  oversight  of  the  congregation,  that  Dr.  Vlil- 
ler,  a  Presbyterian,  could  say,  "  In  the  form  of  government  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  the  pastors  of  churches  are  expressly 
styled  bishops.''^  Def.  p.  50.  So  also  said  Mr.  Wesley.  "  \. 
Bishop — or  pastor  of  a  congregation."  I.  Tim.  3ch.  2  ver.  See 
also  Moore's  life  of  Wesley,  vol.  2-  p.  283.  The  pastor  is  called 
a  bishop,  because  he  is  the  overseer  of  the  congregation.  Mr. 
E\s  quotation,  from  Dr  Miller's  letters,  to  show  the  connexion 
between  what  .>ir.  Wesley  says  in  his  objurgatory  letter  to  Mr. 
Asbury,  respecting  the  presbyterians,  and  what  Mr.  Wesley 
says  respecting  putting  away  the  title  of  bishop,  is  extremely 
disingenuous  Surely  Dr.  vlijler  could  not  mean,  that  a  bishop 
is  a  minister  of  the  third  order,  a  sentiment  which  -Mr.  Asbury 
held  when  he  assumed  the  title  of  bishop,  and  to  which  -ir. 
Wesley  was  strongly  opposed.  The  preacher  in  charge  among 
the  Methodists  is  of  the  same  order  as  the  rest  of  the  elders,  in 
the  same  station,  and  yet  he  is  by  virtue  of  his  office,  pastor, 
overseer  or  bishop  of  that  charge.  He  is  not  called  a  bishop,  it 
is  true  ;  that  title  being  applied  to  another  order  of  men.  If 
the  title  bishop,  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  means  either 
the  preacher  in  charge,  or  a  man  in  elder's  orders,  I  never  knew' 
it  before. 

3.  I  hesitated,  for  some  time,  whether  I  would  notice  Mr.  E's 
remarks  res()ecting  Mr.  Wesley's  being  elected  to  the  "  episco- 
pal office,''  considering  these  remarks  to  be  so  futile,  that  ererv 

8 


lU 

one  would,  at  a  glance,  perceive  their  absurdity.  Lest,  how- 
ever, they  should  be  considered  by  some  clrotvning  men,  who 
would  catch  at  a  straw,  sound  and  unansuerable,  I  have  con- 
cluded to  insert  them,  and  bestow  on  them  one  or  two  remarks. 
"  Mr.  M'Caine  reproaches  our  fathers  with  entermg  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's name  on  the  minutes  of  1789  as  a  bishop,  atter  it  was 
known,  that  the  very  term  was  so  extremely  otfensive  to  him. 
This  is  not  correct.  They  did  enter  him  as  exercising  the  epis- 
copal office.  But  they  did  not  entitle  him  bishop."  Dei\  p.  68. 
Now  what  is  this  but  a  poor  pitiful  quibble,  as  destitute  of 
honesty  as  it  is  of  common  sen^e.  And  if  Nielhodist  episcopacy 
is  to  be  defended  and  supported  by  such  means,  1  wouUi  say  of 
it,  "my  soul  come  not  thou  into  their  secret  ;  unto  their  assem- 
bly mine  honour  be  not  thou  united."  For  to  say  nothnig  of  the 
"principles  of  verbality,""  which  are  so  offensive  to  Mr.  E.  any 
intelligent  school-boy  of  10  or  12  years  of  age  can  tell  him,  that 
the  "  episcopal  office"  is  the  office  of  a  bishop  ;  and  that  the 
person  discharging  the  duties  of  that  office,  is  called  a  bishop. 
To  deny  that  Mr  Wesley  was  a  bishop,  merely  because  he 
was  only  entered  "  as  exercising  the  episcopal  otiice,"  is  to 
deny  that  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  were  bishops,  for  they 
were  entered  in  the  same  way,  in  the  same  answer.  If,  there- 
fore, it  was  necessary  to  constitute  Mr.  Wesley  a  bishop,  to 
enter  him  by  that,  title,  it  was  equally  necessary  to  enter  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  by  that  title,  to  constitute  them  bishops. 
And  as  the  term  bishop  does  not  appear  on  the  minutes  for  11 
years,  namely,  from  the  year  1789  to  the  year  I8D0,  and  as  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  were  considered,  in  all  that  time,  "bish- 
ops," notwithstanding  they  were  only  entered  "  as  exercising 
the  episcopal  office,"  in  like  manner,  must  Mr.  Wesley  be  con- 
sidered a  bishop,  although  he  was  only  entered  "as  exercising 
the  episcopal  office." 

— aQ!^— 

Sectio^n  XIV. —  Orgaiuzatioii  of  the  ^lelhodist  episcopal  cluirch. 

I  HAD  occasion  to  remark,  that  the  two  preceding  sections  of 
Mr  Es  book,  contain  but  little  that  had  not  been  interspersed 
in  other  parts  of  his  work.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
this  section  also.  Perhaps  he  thought,  that  as  he  had  under- 
taken to  write  a  book,  it  would  not  look  like  being  a  '^  Dejence 
of  our  Fathers"  unless  it  were  respectable  for  size.  Or,  he  may 
have  thought,  that  it  would  not  be  considered  an  ample  refuta- 
tion of  the  "  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy," 
if  it  did  not  contain  a  few  pages  more  than  that  ^vork.  Or,  he 
may  have  thought,  that  there  are  some  men  in  the  Methodist 
episcopal  church  weak  enough  to  judge  of  the  merits  of  his 
book,  and  the  weight  of  his  arguments,  by  the  number  of  his 
pages  ;  and  that  tliese  would  certainly  pronounce  the  "  Defence 


il5 

of  our  Fathers''  a  masterly  and  unanswerable  production,  if  it 
were  only  a  little  larger  than  my  pamphlet.  To  swell  the  work, 
therefore,  it  became  necessary  to  repeat.  For  notwithstandin<f 
all  the  advantages  he  possessed,  ha-ving  nearly  the  whole  con- 
nexion on  his  side  : — all  the  assistance  he  could  procure  from 
the  bishops  : — all  the  aid  he  could  obtain  from  Doctors  in  Di- 
vinity and  Masters  of  Arts  : — all  the  information  he  could  collect 
from  records  and  documents,  from  the  letters  of  the  living  and 
the  papers  of  the  dead,  it  seems  that  he  could  not  write  a 
pamphlet  in  a  neat,  condensed,  logical,  and  methodical  manner: 
but  has  compounded  and  confounded,  affirmed  and  repeated, 
until  his  book  has  grown  to  the  number  of  ninety-two  pages. 
Although,  according  to  my  plan  of  answering  his  book,  I  am 
obliged  to  follow  him  through  his  sections  ;  yet  I  shall  not  imi- 
tate him,  in  this  species  of  amplification,  I  shall  confine  myself 
to  those  parts  of  this  section  which  have  not  been  previously 
noticed,  or  such  as  are  in  my  opinion  deserving  of  remark. 

I  have  already  declared  it  to  be  my  settled  opinion,  "  that 
every  church  has  a  right,  not  only  to  choose  for  heiself  a  par- 
ticular form  of  government,  at  the  commencement  of  her  exist- 
.cn'ce,  but  to  alter,  change,  or  amend  it,  after  it  has  been  adopt- 
ed." The  Methodist  sooietieti,  which  had  an  existence  in  1784, 
possessed  tlie  right  to  adopt  any  form  of  government,  the  epis- 
copal, the  presbyterian,  the  congregational,  or  any  other,  which 
at  that  period  they  might  have  thought  proper  to  adopt.  On 
this  point  there  is,  I  suppose,  no  dispute.  The  point  in  dispute 
is  this  :  Had  the  travelling  preachers  alone,  the  right  to  form 
themselves  into  a  church,  adopt  the  episcopal  form  of  govern- 
ment for  the  societies,  and  assume  the  title  of  the  Methodist 
episcopal  church  ;  not  only  without  the  knowledge,  approbatioB 
or  consent  of  those  societies,  but  against  their  views  and  wishes. 
For  Dr.  Coke  tells  the  bishop  of  London,  that  "our  numerous 
societies,  in  America,  would  have  been  a  regular  presbyteriaa 
church,"  were  it  not  that  he  had  taken  steps  to  prevent  it.  That 
the  travelling  preachers  had  no  right  to  choose  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  societies  without  their  concurrence  or  appro- 
bation, I  affirm  :  much  less  had  they  a  right  to  form  one,  to 
which  the  societies  were  opposed.  And  here  I  will  adopt  Mr, 
E's  own  reasoning  and  language  in  his  "  Report"  on  the  peti» 
tions  and  memorials  to  the  late  general  conference.  If  the 
preachers  had  this  right,  "  it  must  be  either  a  natural,  or  ac- 
quired right.  If  a  natural  right,  then,  being  founded  in  nature, 
it  must  be  common  to  men,  as  men."  According  to  this  rea- 
soning, if  the  preachers  '"■  as  men,"  had  "a  natural  right"  to 
choose  for  themselves  what  form  of  government  they  pleased  ; 
the  members  "  as  men"  had  "  a  natural  right,"  to  choose  a  form 
of  government  for  themselves  likewise.  Nay,  the  members  had 
as  good  a  right  to  choose  a  form  of  g-overnment  for  the  preaeh- 


116 

ers,  as  the  preachers  Tiacl  to  choose  one  for  the  memhers,  "  If 
it  be  alleged  to  be  an  acquired  linlit,  then  it  must  bave  been 
acquired  either  in  consequence  of  becoming  Christians,  or  of 
becoming  Methodists.  If  the  former,  it  devolves  on"  those  Meth- 
odist [)reachers  or  their  advocates,  who  may  assert  thai  the 
preachers  in  1784,  had  a  right  to  choose  the  episcopal  form  of 
government  for  the  societies  "  to  prove,  that  this  right  is  con- 
ferred by  the  Holy  Scrijatures  :  and  it  is  also  binding  on 
them  to  prove  that  the  Scriptures  impose  on"  the  members, 
*'  the  corresponding  obligation  to  giant  the  claim  ''  The  Holy 
Scriptures  gave  no  authority  to  Methodist  preachers,  to  adopt 
the  episcopal  form  of  government  for  tne  >  ethodist  societies, 
Tvhen  the  church  vv  as  organized  ;  of  course  no  right  can  be 
proved  from  them.  "  Or  if  the  latter  be  alleged,  viz.  that  it 
has  been  acquired  in  consequence  of  becoming  Methodists,  then 
it  must  have  been,  either  by  some  conventional  compact,  or  by 
some  obligatory  principle,  in  the  economy  of  Methodism,  to 
which,  as  tlien  organized^  the  claimants  voluntarily  attached 
themselves.  "  That  the  preacheis  derived  a  right  to  adopt  the 
episcopal  form  cf  gjven.ment  from  any  "conventional  com- 
pact," no  One  will  afl'rm  ;  for  no  such  "compact'"  was  ever 
made.  Indeed,  the  societies  were  not  even  consulted,  much  less 
"  a  conventipnal  compact'-  entered  into.  That  the  preachers 
did  not  derive  a  right  from  any  * 'obligatory  principle  in  the 
economy  of  ethodism,"  is  equally  evident.  For  it  was  the  pe- 
culiar glor}  of  Methodism,  '•'•  as  then  organized,^''  to  receive  into 
its  societies,  "all  wiio  had  a  desire  to  Hee  the  wrath  to  come." 
If  any  were  expelled  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Metliodists, 
they  were  not  thereby  excommunicated  from  their  own  churches. 
Expulsion  from  the  one,  did  not  imply  expulsion  from  the  other. 
Tliese  were  "the  principles  of  Methodism  as  then  organized,'^ 
and  from  these  principles,  the  travelling  pnachers  derived  no 
right  to  organize  the  chuich  and  adopt  the  episcopal  form  of 
government  for  the  societies,  without  their  consent. 

Having  admitted  and  maintained  the  right  of  the  societies  to 
choose  any  form  of  government  they  pieased,  I  will  now  oiler 
my  objections  to  the  episcopal  form  bemg  adopted  for  them. 
1.  It  was  adopted  by  the  preachers  alone,  without  consulting 
the  societies,  or  obtaining  their  concurrence  or  approbation  ; 
a  thing  haying  no  precedent  in  the  Christian  work!  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  piesent  time.  2.  If  the  societies  had 
been  consulted,  they  would  not  have  chosen  ihe  episcopal^hu\  the 
presbyteyian  form,  as  appeals  from  the  testimony  of  Or.  Coke  : 
"our  numerous  societies,  in  America.  ViOuld  have  been  a  regular 
presbyterian  church,  if  it  had  not  been  for  myself"  &c.  3.  To 
give  the  episcopal  form  of  government  currency  with  the  peo- 
ple, and  to  reconcile  them  to  the  adojttion  of  a  form,  for  which 
they  had  no  partialities,  but  to  which  they  were  opposed,  ad- 


in 

vantage  was  taken  of  tlie  great  respect  the  societies  had  for  the 
name  and  chaiacier  of  Mr.  VVesley.  It  was,  therefore,  pui)lisiiecl, 
that  this  lorm  ot  li^overnment  was  "recommeiuled"  by  him  ;  and 
that  it  was  adopted  in  consequence  of  his  "counsel''  and  advice. 
These  things,  will  be  a  suflicient  answer  to  Mr.  K's  question,  ''on 
'  what  ground  is  the  Methodist  episcopacy  thus  instituted  iUes[iti- 
mate,  unlawful.^"  Def.  p.  70  It  is  unlawful,  I.  Because  the 
preachers  had  no  right,  no  authority  "from  the  Holy  Scriprures 
— from  a  conventional  comjiact — or  from  the  principles  of  Me- 
thodism, as  then  organized"  to  ado[)t  the  episcopal  form  of  go- 
vernment. 2.  Because,  it  rendered  the  people's  rights  a  nullity; 
or  in  other  words,  the  people-  were  treated  as  ifthey  had  no  right 
to  say  one  word  in  the  organization  of  the  church,  or  the  adopt- 
ion ot  the  form  of  government.  3.  Because  Mr.  Wesley's  re- 
commendation was  offered  as  authority  for  it,  which  recommen- 
dation was  never  given.  And  4.  because  it  was  imposed  upon 
the  societies  under  the  sanction  of  Mr.  VV^eshiy's  name. 

Mr.  E.  seems  to  think  that  if  VIr.  Asbury  had  been  influenced 
'by  motives  of  ambition  and  selt''-aggrandizement,"it  would  have 
been  ''easy"  for  him,  "to  have  organized  a  church  in  America, 
with  himself  at  its  head,  independently  of  Mr.  Wesley,   and  of 
the  whole  European  connexion."  Def  p.  69.     I  think  not :    for 
Jn  that  case,  he  must  have  renounced  his  principles  ;  or,  he  must 
have  had  a  church  without  the  ordinances, — a  mere  faction,  not 
a  church:  a  church  being  "a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in 
which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments 
duly  administered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance"  See  XIII. 
Article  of  Religion.     Mr.  Asbury  had  been  brought  up  in  the 
church  of  England;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  chang- 
ed his  sentiments  respecting  the  doctrines,  or  government  of  that 
church.   It  has  been  shewn  already,  that  instead  of  changing,  he 
retained  them  :    and  that  he  differed  from  Mr.  Wesley  respect- 
ing the  order  of  bisiiops,  afhrming  it  was  distinct  from  and  supe- 
rior to  the  order  of  presbyters.     If  Mr.  Asbury  did  not  hold  the 
doctrine  of  "apostolical  succession,"  he,  all  along  acted  on  the 
principle,   that  ordination  by  those,    who  themselves  had  been 
ordained,  according  to  common,  ecclesiastical  usage,  was  neces- 
sary to  the  valid  administration  of  the  ordinances.  On  this  ground 
he  resisted  the  proceedings  of  the  preachers  in  Virginia,  who,  in 
1778,  acting  under  the  "exigence  of  necessity,"  chose  three  of 
their  own  body,  and  ordained  ihem.     On  the  same  ground,  he 
was  unremitting  in  his  exertions  to  prevail  on  them  to  suspend 
the  administration  of  the  ordinances.     On  the  same  ground  also, 
he  afterw^ards  voted  wi'h  the  Philadelphia  conference,   that  the    - 
aforesaid  ordinations  of  the  Virginia  preachers,  and  all  the  pro- 
ceedings, connected  therewith,  were  '■''invalid.''''    "To  have  or- 
ganized  a  church,  what  plausible  pretext  or  occasion  did  he 
want,"  says  Mr.  E.  I  reply,  he  wanted  ordination;  a  proper,  re- 


118 

guJar,  ecclesiastical  ordination,  such  a  one  as  accorded  with  his 
own  views.  Without  such  an  ordination,  he  could  not  move  an 
inch.  And  where  could  he  have  obtained  it  ?  The  Protestant 
episcopal  church  in  the  United  States,  was  not  at  that  time  or- 
ganized. Her  ministers  had  not  ordination  for  themselves;  con- 
sequently could  not  have  given  it  lo  others.  Such  an  ordination 
as  any  other  religious  denomination  could  have  imparted,  ad- 
mitting they  were  willing,  Mr.  Asbury  would  not  have  accepted, 
because  inconsistent  with  his  principles.  He  knew,  therefore,  it 
would  be  vain  to  expect  ordination  from  any  other  quarter  than 
from  Mr.  \^  esley  ;  and  accordingly,  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  it 
from  him,  he  waited  patiently  many  years.  Now  will  Mr.  E. 
answer  one  question:  Why  did  Mr.  Asbury  remain  in  connexion 
with  Mr.  Wesley  for  13  years  after  he  arrived  in  this  country, 
resisting  the  importunities  of  the  people  for  the  ordinances — op- 
posing the  proceedings  and  ordinations  of  the  preachers  in  Vir- 
ginia, "some  of  whom,  were  the  ablest  and  most  influential  men 
in  connexion,  aud  some  of  whom  were  his  most  intimate,  and 
personal  friends-,"  and  yet  in  two  years  after  he  had  obtained 
ordination  from  Mr.  W^esley,  he  relused  to  submit  to  his  author- 
ity, and  struck  his  name  from  the  American  minutes  ?  If  there 
was  no  "ambition  and  self-aggrandizement"  in  this,  there  was 
something,  which,  to  me  at  least,  looks  very  much  like  it. 


Section  XV. — Leaving  Mr.  Wesleifs  name  off  the  Minutes. 

"The  meaning  of  this  phrase,"  says  Mr.  E.  "seems  not  to  have 
heen  correclhj  understood''''  {^non  mi  recordi  again).  "In  some  pla- 
ces Mr.  M'Caine  asserts,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  lett  oflin 
1785 — in  other  places  he  represents  this  event  as  having  taken 
place  in  1787.  The  confusion  was  in  Mr.  M'Caine's  own  mind, 
not  in  the  subject.  Def.  p.  73.  In  a  note  on  the  49th  page,  Mr.  E. 
advances  the  same  sentiment.  And  on  page  81,  he  says  "Mr. 
M'Caine  asserts  also,  that  the  minutes  of  conierenceicere  a/fercfZ, 
to  make  them  quadrate  with  subsequent  proceedings."  In  pioof 
of  this,  and  showing  the  application  to  Mr.  Asbury,  he  refers  to 
Lee's  History.  Now  Mr.  Lee  says,  "In  the  course  of  this  year 
(1787)  Mr.  Asbury  re-printed  the  general  minutes,  but  in  a  dif- 
ferent form,  from  what  they  were  before." 

I  have  collected  and  placed  together,  in  one  paragraph,  all 
that  Mr.  E.  has  said  respecting  leaving  Mr.  Wesley's  name  off 
the  minutes,  that  the  reader  may  judge,  whether  what  1  have 
said  on  this  subject,  and  on  the  alteration  of  the  niinutes,  be  cor- 
rect or  not.  Before  I  proceed  to  the  proof  of  these  facts,  it  may 
be  proper  to  inform  him,  that  "the  minutes  of  conference"  of 
which  1  speak,  and  which  I  have  examined,  is  a  bound  volume, 
purporting  to  contain   "Minutes  of  the  Methodist  conferences 


il9 

annually  held  in  America  from  1773  to  1813  inclusive,  Vol.1.. 
New-York,  published  by  Daniel  Hitt  and  Thomas  NVare,  for 
the  Methodist  connexion  in  the  United  States.  John  C.  Totten, 
printer.  1813."  This  volume  is  easily  obtained,  and  the  reader 
is  requested  to  examine  it,  for  himself. 

Advertino,-  to  the  leaving  of  Mr.  VVesley's  name  off  the  min- 
utes, I  said  in  my  pamphlet,  "We  know  it  to  be  a  /acf,  that  Mr. 
Wesley's  name  was  left  out  of  the  minutes  of  conference  ;  and 
many  of  our  old  friends  are  acquainted  with  (his  fact,  as  well  as 
ourselves.  But  bow  many  are  acquainted  with  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  .■'  We  presume  but  very  few.  We  arc  free  to 
acknowledg-e,  loe  are  not.''''  His.  &  Mys.  p.  3i3,  First.  From 
this  statement  it  is  evident,  that  I  did  not  fix  the  date  at  all.  I 
neither  atlirmed  it  was  '35,  nor  '87.  When  I  mentioned  the  fact, 
I  did  not,  myself,  determine  the  period  when  his  name  was  left 
off.  I  only  mentioned  it  with  reference  to  the  records  of  the 
church,  or  to  other  authorities.  Secondly.  In  order  to  come  at 
the  kno.wledijce  of  the  date  of  a  fact,  of  which  I  professed  my 
i.f^norance,  I  examined  the  above  book  of  minutes,  but  could  not 
find  Mr.  Wesley's  name  on  them  from  1784  until  1789.  Thirdly, 
Notwithstanding  Mr.  Wesley's  name  does  not  appear  in  the 
minutes  from  1781  until  1789, 1  argued  it  must  have  been  on  the 
minutes  for  1785,  when  those  minutes  vjers  taken.  For  this  opin- 
ion I  assigned  the  following  reasons,  two  of  which  Mr.  E.  has 
not  noticed.  "1.  Because,  rt  seems  strange,  if  not  unreasonable, 
that  the  conference  would  give  Mr.  Wesley's  name  as  the  only 
authority  for  the  adoption  of  the  episcopal  form  of  government, 
and  at  the  very  same  conference  determine  to  reject  him.  2.  Be- 
cause, in  quoting  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  in  the  above  'account,' 
that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  the  liturgy,  is  omitted.  That 
there  was  no  resolution  passed  at  that  conference  to  suppress 
that  part  of  his  letter,  we  argue  from  the  fact,  that  the  prayer 
book,  which  !)ad  been  abridged  and  recommended  by  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, was  used  by  the  superintendents  and  many  of  the  preachers 
subsequently  to  the  conference  of  1784  :  and  we  cannot  believe, 
that  they  would  do  a  thing,  the  authority  for  doing  which,  they 
had  previously  and  formally  rejected.  3.  Because  we  have  the 
testimony  of  the  Rev.  .Tesse  IjCc  to  prove,  that  the  minutes  of 
conference  were  altered  !  In  the  coarse  of  this  year  1787,  Mr. 
Asbury  re-printed  the  general  minutes,  but  in  a  dillerent  form 
from  what  they  v/ere  before."  History  and  Mystery,  pp.  37.  38. 
Fourthly.  Finding  I  could  not  ascertain  from  t!ie  minutes,  wtien 
his  name  was  left  off,  I  inquired  of  several  old  members,  if  they 
could  tell  me.  But  not  obtaining  the  desired  information  frorti 
them,  I  wrote  to  tlic  five  bishops:  also  to  six  of  the  oldest  preach- 
ers in  the  connexion.  See  the  fourth  question  in  my  circular  let- 
ters. The  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson  in  his  answer,  to  my  let- 
ter said.  "1  tiiink  it  was  done  at  a  conference  held  in  Mav  1787.'" 


l!20 

This  is  one  of  the  dates,  which,  Mr.  E.  says,  I  gave.  I  only 
averred  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  on  the  min- 
utes of  1785  and  1786  when  these  minutes  uere  taken.  That  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Garrettson's  letter,  his  name  v\as  left  off  in  1787. 
That  when  the  minutes  of '85  and  86'  \oere  taken  Mr.  Wesley's 
name  was  on  them,  but  when  the  same  minutes  loere  ■printed.,  his 
name  was  left  oif.  Where  now  is  the  confusion?  In  my  "mind," 
or  in  the  records  of  the  church?  I  am  fully  sustained  in  the  state- 
ment, 'nhat  the  minuteg  of  conference  were  altered  to  make  them 
quadrate  with  subsequent  proceedings."  1  therefore  reiterate  the 
assertion  in  the  face  of  the  world,  and  I  challenge  Mr.  E.  or  any 
other  person  to  disprove  what  I  say,  the  records  of  the 
CHURCH  HAVE  BEEN  ALTERED,  The  omission  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
name  in  the  printed  minutes  of  conference  for  1785  and  178G  is 
one  proof;  but  it  is  not  the  only  one. 

2.  The  minutes  of  conference  for  1785,  printed  in  the  bound 
volume  referred  to  above,  furnish  primafacie  evidence,  that  they 
were  not  taken  at  the  time  the  cont'erence  was  held  in  that  year. 
In  these  printed  minutes,  the  past  lime  is  used  instead  of  the  pre- 
$ent.,  in  every  instance,  thus  :  "If.  loas  agreetV — "circumstances 
made'''' — "At  this  conference  we  formed^'' — "we  thought  it  best," 
&c.  In  the  original  minutes  it  reads  thus:  "We  will  form  ourselves 
into  an  episcopal  church"  &c.  Besides,  the  word  "^bishop"  is  in- 
serted in  the  bound  minutes  of  1785,  and  it  is  now  well  known, 
tliat  that  term  was  not  used  until  J 787. 

3.  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter,  dated  "Bristol  Sep.  10. 1784" 
was  not  inserted  in  the  minutes  of  1785  when  these  minutes  were 
taken.  This  statement  I  make  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  not 
having-  it  in  my  power  to  examine  these  minutes  now.  The  only 
copy  of  these  minutes  which  I  ever  saw,  was  bound  up  in  the 
prayer  book  of  1786;  and  if  Mr.  E.  cannot  piocuie  a  copy  of 
that  p;  ayer  book,  nearer  than  Baltimore,  he  can,  I  believe,  obtain 
one  from  his  friend  Dr.  Bond.  This  prayer  boolc  is  very  scarce; 
for  although  I  have  been  in  16  states  of  the  Union,  and  have 
been  in  the  houses  of  many  old  Methodists,  I  never  saw  a  copy 
of  this  prayer  book,  but  one.  As  soon  as  I  had  returned  it  to  the 
owner,  I  was  informed  that  Dr.  Bond  had  bought  it  up.  But  alas! 
for  him  and  Methodist  episcopacy,  he  was  a  day  too  late.  I  be- 
lieve Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter  of  the  above  date  is  not  in  the 
minutes  of  1765,  wliich  were  inserted  in  the  prayer  book  o(  '86: 
and  yet  that  letter  will  be  found  in  the  minutes  for  '85  printed 
for  the  American  connexion.  Here,  then,  if  my  recollection  is 
correct,  is  another  proof,  that  the  records  of  the  church  have 
been  altered,  by  inserting  this  letter  in  the  book  ef  printed  min- 
utes, when  it  was  not  inserted  in  the  minutes  when  taken.  This 
same  letter  is  said  to  contain  ail  the  "reasons"  for  becoming  a 
"separate  body  under  the  denomination  of  the  Methodist  episco- 
pal church;"  and  yet  there  is  no  reference  made  to  those   "rea~ 


121 

sons,"  in  the  minutes  printed  in  the  prayer  book  of  '86,  but  other 
"reasons"  are  assigned  for  that  measure.  Nor  is  this  all.  'Vhen 
this  letter  was  printed  it  was  mutilated^  part  of  it  having  been 
expunged. 

4.  The  minutes  of  conference,  which  were  taken  when  the 
'church  was  organized,  "were  first  printed,"  says  Mr.  E.  "ia 
Philadelphia  by  Charles  Cist  in  1785."  Def  p.  41.  They  were 
afterwards  re-printed  with  the  prayer  book  in  "London,  hy  Prys 
and  Couchman."  These  minutes  are  headed  as  follows.  "The 
general  minutes  of  the  conferences  of  the  Methodist  episcopal 
church  in  America,  forming  the  consntution  of  the  said  churcli." 
These  minutes  contain  seventy-six  questions  with  their  answers, 
and  occupy  a  space  of  thirty-three  pages.  Now,  any  one,  who 
will  take  the  pains  to  look  into  the  book  of  minutes,  printed  for 
the  Methodist  episcopal  church,  cannot  find  one  single  question 
or  answer,  in  them,  which  was  printed  in  the  minutes  bound  up 
in  the  prayer  book.  No,  nor  one  single  line  I  had  occasion  to 
notice,  before,  the  constructioii  and  operation  of  Mr.  E's  '•'■magi- 
cal mill^"''  but  really  here  is  something  worse  than  his  mill.  He 
did  give  us  a  page  and  a  half,  after  grinding  down  44  pages  of 
Drew's  Life  of  Coke.  But  in  the  bound  minutes  we  have  nor  a 
single  page,  nor  a  single  question,  nor  a  single  answer,  nor  a 
single  line  of  the  minutes  of  conference  of '85  which  were  pub- 
lished in  the  prayer  book.  Here  is  a  fourth  proof  that  the  records 
of  the  church  have  been  altered.  And  for  what  purpose  were  they 
altered  ?  I  answer  again,  "to  make  them  quadrate  with  subse- 
quent proceedings." 

To  weaken  the  force  of  Mr.  Lee's  testimony  produced  above, 
Mr.  E.  quotes  another  passage  from  his  (Mr.  Leej  book,  which, 
by  the  unwary  reader,  might  be  considered  as  relating  to  the 
same  subject.  "Tiie  form  of  the  annual  minutes  was  changed 
this  year,  1779,  in  a  few  points,  and  the  first  question  stands 
thus,  who  are  admitted  on  trial  .-•  The  first  question  used  to  be, 
who  are  admitted  into  connexion  ?  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
Mr.  Lee  had  reference  simply  to  the  form  in  which  the  minutes 
were  methodised  and  printed."  Def  p.  81.  A'ofe.  In  this  place, 
he  had  reference  to  the yorm.  But  it  is  not  "evident"  to  me,  that 
he  had,  in  the  quotation,!  gave  from  him  formerly.  For  Mr.  Lee 
had  too  much  good  sense,  and  too  much  honesty  to  say,  in  reply 
to  the  assertion  that  the  records  of  the  church  were  altered,  that 
this  alteration  consisted,  in  a  mere  transposition  in  the  order  of 
the  questions.  Nor  will  the  quotation  in  the  above  note  p.  81 
invalidate  the  testimony  I  adduced  fiom  Mr.  Lee's  History  in 
6upj)ortjof  the  alteration  of  the  records  of  the  church.  For  m 
Mr.'E's  quotation,  Mr.  Lee  speaks  of  a  change  which  was  made 
in  1779.  In  the  quotation  which  I  gave  above,  Mr.  Lee  speaks 
of  Mr.  Asbury's  re-printing  "the  general  minutes  in  a  ditierent 
form  from  what  they  were  before."     The  reader  will  please  to 


123 

notice  that  this  latter  alteration  which  is  the  one  to  which  T  re- 
ferred was  made  in  1787.  And  the  one  which  Mr.  E.  gives,  was 
made  in  1779.  See  the  dates,  and  (hen  say  was  not  Mr.  E.  oun- 
nina^,  U  is  not  of^  ihe  folding  of  the  paper,  or  form  of  the  inslru-' 
ment  of  writing,  but  of  the  matter  or  contents,  that  an  honest  man 
speaks  when  he  says,  the  record,  or  document  was  altered. 
Neither  was  it  of  the  faun  or  arrangement  of  the  questions  in 
the  minutes  I  spoke,  when  i  affirmed  "the  records  of  the  church 
have  been  altered." 

I  have  now  incontestibly  established  the  two  points  with  which 
I  commenced,  namely,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  left  oflf  the 
minutes,  and  that  the  records  of  the  church  have  been  altered. 
How  the  omission  of  his  name  was  viewed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  we 
learn  from  Mr.  Asbury  liimself.  Alluding  to  the  minutes  of '85 
in  which  the  conference  declared  themselves  "ready  in  matters 
belonging  to  church  government  to  obey  his  (Mr.  Wesley's) 
commands,"  Mr.  Asbury  says  in  his  Journals,  "it  is  true,  /  never 
approved  of  that  binding  minute.  I  did  not  think  it  practical  ex- 
pediency to  obey  Mr.  VV'esley  at  three  thousaiul  miles  distance, 
in  all  matters  relating  to  church  government;  neither  did  brother 
"Whatcoat,  nor  several  others.  At  the  first  general  conference  I 
was  mnic  and  modest  when  it  passed,  and  I  was  mute  when 
it  was  expunged.  For  this  Mr.  Wesley  blamed  me,  and  was  dis- 
pleased that  I  did  not  rather  reject  the  whole  connexion,  or 
leave  them  if  they  did  not  comply." 

We  shall  now  see  what  was  Dr.  Coke's  opinion  respecting 
this  transaction,  which  Mr.  E.  palliates  with  a  cold  phlegmatic 
acknowledgment,  "  that  a  g^ewf/cr,  and  more  conciliatory  course, 
on  the  part  of  the  conference,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Wesley,  per- 
sonally, might  have  been,  perhaps,  the  more  excellent  way." 
How  this  sentence  drags  ! 

"The  line,  too,  labours,  and  the  words  move  slow." 

No  wonder,  when  disapprobation  is  expressed  of  any  part  of 
Mr.  Asbury 's  conduct  :  for  he  is  the  only  one  in  Mr.  E's  book 
that  has  not  been  censured,  and  even  this  is  accompanied  with 
a  *  perhaps"  as  if  it  came  from  a  friend!  But  there  would 
be  no  "  perhaps"  in  the  case,  if  the  New  York  conference 
were  to  serve  Mr.  E.  as  Mr.  Wesley  was  served.  But  to 
return  to  Dr.  Coke.  He  said,  in  the  seimon  he  preached  in 
Baltimore  on  the  occasion  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death,  "  that  the 
leaving  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name  otf  the  minutes  was  an  almost 
diabolical  act.  No  history  furnished  any  parallel  to  it — that 
a  body  of  Christian  ministers  should  treat  an  aged  and  faithful 
minister,  as  Mr.  Wesley  undoubtedly  was,  with  such  disre- 
spect." in  his  circular,  dated  Wilmington,  Delaware,  May  4th, 
1791.  he  says,  "  I  doubt  much,  whether  the  cruel  usage  he  re- 
ceived in  Baltimore  in  1787,  when  he  was  excommunicated. 


123 

(wonderftil  and  most  unparalleled  step)  did  not  hasten  his  death.  [ 
Indeed  /  little  doubt  it.  For  from  the  time  l)e  was  infortned  \ 
of  it,  he  began  to  hang  down  his  head,  and  to  think  he  had  ' 
lived  lonj^  enough  ''  ' 

Mr.  E,  thinks  "it  was  not  understood,  or  intended  from  the 
commencement  of  the  organization  of  our  church,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  should  personally  appoint  our  church  officers.'"  For 
this  opinion  he  otfers  as  proof,  that  Mr.  Wesley  retained  the 
form  of  ordination  of  superintendents  in  the  prayer  book,  which 
form  prescribes  "the  imposition  of  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
elected  person."  That  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  understand  this  busi- 
ness in  the  light  in  which  Mr.  E.  represents  it  is  undeniable  ; 
for  he  did  appoint  Mr.  VVhatcoat  joint  superintendent  with  Mr. 
Asbury,  as  may  be  seen  by  his  letter  to  Dr.  Coke  on  that  sub- 
ject. 2.  Mr.  Wesley  never  did,  and  never  would  give  up  the 
appointment  of  church  officers,  especially  those  who^  held  the 
first  rank  in  the  Methodist  societies.  3.  He  was  displeased 
that  even  election  was  resorted  to  by  the  general  conference,  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Asbury  to  the  superintendency.  And  this,  by 
the  way,  may  serve  as  another  proof,  in  addition  to  those  I  liave 
already  offered,  that  in  recommending  the  liturgy,  he  neither 
recommended  a  third  order  of  ministers,  nor  the  episcopal  form 
of  church  government. 

— oG^— 

Section  XVI. — JMv.  M'-Caineh  Arithmetical  Calculation. 

In  my  History  and  Mystery  I  stated  that  "  Methodist 
episcopacy,  from  its  commencement,  had  a  tendency  to  cre- 
ate dissensions  and  divisions  among  the  bishops  and  trav- 
elling preachers,  as  well  as  among  the  societies."  p.  62. 
In  proof  of  this  assertion,  I  noticed  the  rupture  which  took 
place  between  Dr.  Coke  and  the  conference  in  1787. — "The 
dissatisfaction  in  our  connexion  in  general,  and  among  the  trav- 
elling preachers  in  particular,''  in  consequence  of  the  "  pro- 
ceedings of  the  council"  in  1789.  The  appeal  of  Mr.  0''Kelly 
in  1703,  besides  other  secessions,  which  took  place  in  ditl'ercnt 
parts  of  the  United  States.  As  the  secession  which  had  its  ori- 
gin in  the  rejection  of  "  Mr.  O'Kclly's  appeal''  was  the  mo-^t 
extensive,  and  most  generally  known  when  treating  of  it  I  said 
"i/u's  appeal,"  &c.  '  Not  that  I  intended  "that  the  rejection  of 
Mr.  O'Kelly's  appeal,  and  that  alone,  abstract  from  all  otlier 
things,  was  the  cause  of  a  decrease  of  20,000.  I  well  knew,  lor 
1  was  on  the  spot  at  the  time,  that  Mr.  Hammett's  secession  had 
taken  place  in  1791,  and  this  secession  1  intended  should  be 
embraced  in  the  account  also.  It  would,  therefore,  have  been 
more  accurate,  if  in  accounting  for  the  decrease,  instead  of  say- 
ing "  this  appeal,"  I  had  said,  the  opposition  to  episcopacy,  (and 


124 

this  was  the  very  thing  with  which  T  commenced  the  section,) 
-and  episcopal  prerosj^ative  was,  ahout  that  time  so  violent  '•'that 
in  five  year'^,  the  minutes  of  conference  exhibit  a  decrease  of 
20,000  members  " 

Mr.  E.  says,  "  Now  how  will  he  make  this  out  ?"    I   will 
tell   him.     At  the  end  of  the  bound  volume  of  minutes,  there  is 
a  '' general  recapitulation"  of  the  number  of  preachers  in  the 
travelling  connexion — the  number  of  preachers  who  died  in  the 
work — and  the  number  of  members  in  society  eacb  year,  from 
the  first  conference   in   1773  flown  to  the  year  1813  inclusive. 
In  this  volume,  are  bound  together,  all  the  minutes  of  the  church; 
and  from  this  table  at  the  end  of  the  volume.  I  took  my  account. 
I  now  put  it  to  the  candor  of  every  man  to  say,  what  reason  had 
I  to  distrust  the  report  of  those  minutes  .''    Had  t  any  reason  to 
believe  that  they  were  less  correct  than  any  other  document  to 
which  I  might  have  recourse  .-'    But  Mr.  E.  says,  ''  in  the  aggre- 
gate, as  exhibited  in  the  minutes,  did  Mr.  M'Caine  discover  no 
mistake  P'    No,  I  did  not;  for  I   went  no  farther  than  this  table. 
I  looked  at  no  other  account  than  this  "  general  recapitulation." 
He   says.  I   ought  to  have  looked  into  Lee's  History.     Had  I 
quoted  from  Lee,   Mr.  E.   perhaps,  would   have   replied,  your 
authority  is  not  official.     Why  do  you  not  go  to  the  minutes  of 
confei'ence  ?    To  the  minutes  I  went,  and   to   them   I  confined 
myself     And  in  examining  them,  was  it  to  be  expected,  that  I 
would  add  up  ever_\  line  of  figures  to  ascertain  the  true  number, 
when  that  was  done  already  to  my  hand  ?    And,  even   if  i    had 
done  so,  and  detected  an  error,  as  I  might  suppose,  how  was  I 
to  determine,  whether  the  error  existed  in   the  minutes  for  the 
respective  year,  or   m  the  table  of  "  general  recapitulation  ?" 
The  one  was  as  likely  to  be  wrong  as   the  other.     And  even 
now,  notwithstanding  I  have  added  up  the  lines   of  figures,  in 
the  minutes  for  1791,  I  do  not  get  the  same  result  with  that  in 
the  minutes      The  fact  is,  that  in  looking  at  the  "general  reca- 
pitulation," I  found   the  number  for  1791  to  be  76,153.     Five 
years  afterwards,  namely  in  1796,  the  number  inserted  is  56,664. 
Confining  myself,  therefore,  to  this  table,  I  had  as  good  reason 
to  believe  the  latter  number  was  incorrect  as  I  bad   that  the 
former  was  ;  but  I  supposed,  as  1  went  to  no  other  account,  that 
both  numbers  were  correct.     If  Mr.  E.  can  subtract  these  two 
numbers  56.664  from  76,153  he  will   find   the  ditlerence  to  be 
19,489,  which  for  the  sake  of  round  numbers,  1  set  down  as 
20.000,  and  said,  it  was  "  about  the  one  third  of  the  whole  num- 
ber in  connexion."     If  the  above  numbers  are  not  correct,  am  I 
answerable  for  the  mistake  ?    If  the  book  agents  publish  erro- 
neous accounts,  how  am  i  to  find  means  to  detect  them.     I  have 
taken  the  statements  hitherto  which  have  come  from  the  book 
room  as  ti-ue  and  correct  ;  but  if     am  pardoned  in  this  tlsing,  I 
will  promise  to  receive  no  account  herealter  as  true,  merely 


125 

liecause  it  comes  from  that  quarter,  notwithstanding  it  may  have 
Mr.  E.  af  its  head 

"  But  we  have  other  cases  of  arithmetical  los^ic,"  says  Mr. 
E.  io '^  propose  in  bar  of  Mr.  M'Caine's."  Mr.  E's  first  ar- 
gument, in  favour  of  "  our  episcopal  form  of  government,"  is 
founded  on  the  increase  of  numbers.  If  this  can  be  called  an 
argument,  it  is  a  weak  and  a  stale  one.  "  In  bar"  of  all  that 
can  be  said  on  that  subject,  the  reader  is  requested  to  turn  to 
the  first  volume  of  the  "  Mutual  Rights"  and  he  will  find  an 
argument  in  favour  of  representation  from  the  laity,  and  conse- 
quently against  "our  episcopal  form  of  government"  as  12^ 
are  to  1|,  Rut  suppose  Mr.  E's  '  logic"  was  sound,  what 
right  has  he  to  use  it  ?  He  has  been  in  the  itinerant  connexion 
for  18  years  :  how  many  have  been  added  to  the  so<;iety  through 
his  instrumentality,  in  ail  that  time  ?  Although  he  writes  so  teel- 
ingly  in  praise  of  Mr.  Asbury's  toils,  and  sulft rings,  and  trav- 
els, and  labours,  yet  it  may  be  asked  how  many  hard  cirmits 
has  he  travelled  .''  What  sutfierings  has  he  endured  .?  His  min- 
isterial services  are  estimated,  perhaps,  as  highly  by  himself 
as  by  others,  but  how  many  have  been  awakened  and  con- 
verted by  his  ministry,  is  not  for  me  to  say  ; — the  great  day 
of  eternity  will  disclose  the  number. 

Section  XYII. —  The  .Address  to  General   JVashinslon. 

"  Let  no  one  blame  an  historian,"  says  an  elegant  writer, 
"  who  does  not  begin  before  his  records  ;  it  is  not  his  fault, 
it  is  his  virtue."  Nor  ought  the  hisiorian  to  be  blamed,  who 
confines  himself  to  his  records,  unless  he  has  undoubted  evidence 
that  his  records  are  not  true.  In  writing  my  "  History  and 
Mystery,"  I  was  govei'ned  by  these  principles,  not  only  not 
"  to  begin  before  my  records,"  but  to  confine  myself  to  the 
accredited  records  of  the  churcli,  and  to  give  those  records  as 
authority  tor  the  facts  I  stated.  Of  the  class  of  records  which 
1  considered  as  worthy  of  belief,  was  the  life  of  Dr.  Coke, 
written  by  Mr.  Drew.  This  work  I  considered  entitled  to  full 
credit.  First,  on  account  of  the  standing  and  reputation  of 
the  author  as  a  writer.  Secondly,  because  it  was  "  printed  in 
London  at  the  conference  room,  sold  by  Thomas  Blanchard, 
14  City  Road,  and  at  the  JMethodist  preaciiing  houses  in  town 
and  country."  Thirdly,  because  it  was  re-printed  by  the  Meth- 
odist episcopal  church,  and  sold  by  the  preachers  in  the  Unit-' 
ed  States.  Of  the  many  facts  contained  in  my  pamphlet,  the 
account  of  one  is  taken  from  this  work,  namely,  that  before 
Dr.  Coke  left  th.e  United  States  in  1785,  an  adilress  was  drawn 
i!u  by  iiim  and  Mr.  Asbury,  wUieh  address  was  presented  by 


126 

tbem  (o  genpral  Washington. — That  tins  address  was  publish- 
ed in  the  newspapers  in  this  country,  and  in  them  found  its 
way  to  England,  before  Dr.  Coke  arrived  there — That  upon 
the  doctor's  airival  in  England,  charges  were  preferred  against 
him,  before  the  conference. — And  tinallj',  as  a  punisjjment,  it 
was  determined  that  his  name  should  be  left  otf  the  minutes 
of  conference  "  the  succeeding  year." 

The  reader  is  jjarticularly  requested  to  bear  in  mind,  that 
T  deiived  every  particle  of  this  information  from  Diew's  life 
of  Coke ;  and  in  copying  the  account  into  my  book,  I  gave, 
not  only  the  page,  but  was  so  particular  as  to  notice  the  edition 
of  the  work.  Now,  what  does  Mr.  E.  with  all  his  boasted  light 
and  inlbrmation  say  respecting  tlie  whole  affair  ?  Does  he  deny 
That  such  an  address  had  been  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  As- 
bury."*  Does  he  deny  that  such  an  address  had  been  presented  in 
1785.''  Does  he  deny  that  this  address  had  been  published  in  the 
newspapers  .''  Does  he  deny  that  the  newspapers  containing  it 
had  reached  England  before  the  doctor  ^  Does  he  deny  that 
charges  predicated  upon  this  address  had  been  preferred  against 
the  doctor  in  the  British  conference  .''  Does  he  deny  that  the 
doctor  was  punished  by  leaving  his  name  off  the  minutes  .''  He 
does  not.  He  admits  all  these  facts,  by  inserting  the  very  same 
account  in  the  "  Defence  of  our  Fathers  ;'"  and  contents  him- 
self with  saying.  "  Mr.  Drew  though  himself  a  British  subject, 
has  vindicated  both  the  conduct  and  motives  of  Dr.  Coke,  on 
that  occasion,  with  a  triumphant  ability,  which  leaves  us  noth- 
ing to  add."  Def  p.  60. 

But  Mr.  E.  intimates  that  the  address  to  Washington  wai 
not  presented  in  n85  but  in  1789.  And  yet  all  the  transac- 
tions coupled  with  this  address,  actually  took  place  according 
to  Mr.  Drew's  statement,  and  I  might  add  Mr,  E's  also,  ia 
1785.  Either  the  whole  account,  as  given  by  Mr.  Drew  and 
copied  by  Mr.  E.  is  incorrect  ;  or  there  was  an  address  pre- 
sented in  1785.  If  there  was  no  address  presented  in  '85,  it 
seems  very  strange  that  Mr.  Drew,  with  all  Dr.  Coke's  papers 
before  liim  should  say  there  was  ;  and  that  his  statement  should 
be  supported  by  collateral  testimony.  Allowing  that  no  address 
was  presented  in  that  year,  as  Mr.  Sparks,  in  his  letter,  inti- 
mates to  be  the  case,  tlien  the  charges  which  were  preferred 
against  the  doctor,  and  the  subsequent  punishment,  must  have 
originated  in  another  matter  ;  and  what  more  likely  to  have 
elicited  charges  than  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  episco- 
pal church,  and  the  assumption  of  that  title.  1  say,  therefore., 
upon  a  review  of  the  whole  alTair,  that  this  address  is  involved 
an  *'mystery;"  and  it  remains  for  Mr.  E.  to  clear  this  mystery  \\\). 
It  may  be  exj)ected  that  I  should  state  the  exertions  I  made 
to  obtain  information  respecting  the  dale  of  this  address,  which 
is  said  by  Mr.  Drew,  to  have  been  presented  to  general  Wash- 


127 

iiigton  in  17S5:  and  the  reasons  which  led  me  to  eonelude  it  was 
dated  in  1785,  and  not  in  1789.  The  reader  must  bear  in  mind, 
thai  although  the  address  itself  is  not  given  by  iMr.  Drew,  nor 
any  date  assigned  to  it,  yet  he  says  expressly  that  an  address 
had  been  drawn  up  and  presented  to  general  AVashiugton,  by 
Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  before  the  doctor  \t\\  the  United 
States  in  1785.  That  it  was  published  in  the  newspapers,  car- 
ried to  England,  preferred  as  a  charge  against  the  doctor,  in  the 
conference,  and  for  it,  his  name  was  left  otfthe  minutes  as  a  pun- 
ishment. All  these  things  are  stated  by  Mr.  Drew,  and  in  the 
contemplation  of  these  facts,  I  considered  first,  the  character  of 
Mr.  Drew.  Some  of  my  readers  may  not  know  that  this  gen- 
tleman is  a  local  preacher  in  the  Methodist  connexion  in  Eng- 
land. That  he  is  the  author  of  two  works  which  have  inimorlai- 
ized  his  name  :  one  on  the"  Immateriality  and  Immortality  of  the 
Soul,"  the  other  on  the  "  Resurrection  of  the  Body."  Thai  as 
a  close  thinker  he  is  considered  to  have  but  few  to  equal, 
none  to  surpass  him.  That  this  gentleman  was  selected,  by  Or. 
Coke  to  write  his  life,  and  for  this  purpose,  the  doctor  placed  in 
his  hands  all  his  papers,  before  he  sailed  for  India.  Now,  what 
was  there  in  the  historian  to  lead  me  to  disbelieve  his  statements? 
I  could  not  doubt  of  his  ability  to  investigate  the  subject;  his 
metaphysical  works  forbade  that  thought.  I  could  not  doubt  of 
his  integrity  ;  his  ministerial  standing,  and  his  high  character  for 
piety  precluded  that.  I  could  not  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  his 
statements;  I  knew  that  he  had  all  Dr.  Coke's  papers  in  his  pos- 
session, and  before  his  eyes.  Viewing  the  subject  therefore,  with 
reference  to  the  ivriter,  and  the  viaterials  which  were  in  his  pos- 
session,! had  no  more  reason  to  question  his  statement,  than  1  would 
ha\e  to  disbelieve  any  statement  in  the  Life  of  Washington,  by 
Ju(.ge  Marshall;  or  in  the  Life  if  Patrick  Henry,  by  Mr.  Wirt. 

Secondly.  1  stated  above,  that  although  Mr.  Drew  did  not  in- 
sert a  copy  ol  the  address  which  had  been  presented  to  general 
Washington,  before  the  doctor  left  the  L'nited  States  in  1785: 
yet  he  inserted  a  copy  of  general  Washington's  answer,  wtiich 
was  said  to  be  an  answer  to  that  same  address.  The  answer  be- 
ing given,  presu[>posed  the  presentment  of  the  address,  to  which 
it  purports  to  be  an  answer.  This  answer,  ihough  it  nas  no  date, 
corresponds  word  for-word  (with  the  excejjtion  of  one  word) 
with  the  answer  published  in  the  Arminian  Magazine,  vol. 
1,  p.  286.  I  concluded  therefore,  that  as  Mr.  Drew  had  all  Dr. 
Coke's  papers  betbre  his  eyes,  that  the  address  published  in  the 
Arminian  Magazine  must  have  been  the  address  to  which  he  re- 
ferred ;  the  answer  in  the  Magazine  being  the  same  as  that  which' 
he  published  in  his  life  of  Dr.  Coke. 

Hardly.  It  will  he  recollected  that  Mr.  Drew  distinctly 
states  tliat  charge^  had  been  preferred  against  the  doctor  upon 
his  return  to  Kngland,  founded  upon  the  address  which  h*^  ^rU^ 


128 

Ifr.  Asbury  presenter!  io  general  Washing'ton.  He  ftrther  tells 
us,  "  traf  as  some  decisive  sleps  were  necessary  to  be  taken 
in  tills  critical  aflair,  it  was  finally  deteimined  tbat  the  name  of 
Dr.  Coke  should  be  omitted,  in  the  minutes  for  the  succeeding 
year.''''  I  accordingly  looked  in  the  British  minutes  for  1786, 
the  year  succeeding  '85,  and  could  not  find  Dr.  Coke's  name  in 
them  that  year.  Here  was  collateral  proof  that  Mr.  Drew  was 
correct  in  his  statement. 

Fourthly.  As  Mr.  Drew  affirmed  that  this  address  was  publish- 
ed in  the  new^spapers  of  the  day,  and  as  general  Washington's 
residence  was  in  the  neiglibourhood  of  Alexandria,  D.  C.  I 
thought  ]t  was  most  likely  that,the  newspapers  in  which  the  ad- 
dress was  published,  were  those  of  Alexandiia.  I  accordingly 
wrote  to  two  gentlemen  in  the  District  ol"  Columbia,  who  are 
well  acquainted  with  several  of  the  officers  of  government,  and 
with  members  of  congress,  requesting  them  to  use  their  influence 
with  their  acquaintance,  as  well  astonuike  exertions  themselves, 
to  procure  forme,  if  possible,  a  copy  of  that  address,  or  inform 
me  in  what  newspaper  it  v\as  printed.  After  a  lapse  of  several 
weeks,  they  answered  my  letters,  and  stated  that  they  could  nei- 
ther find  the  address,  nor  tell  me  where  I  could  obtain  it.  One 
of  fhfse  gentlemen  suggesting  tbat  it  might  probably  be  found 
among  Washington's  papers,  I  had  it  in  contemplation  to  go  to 
Mount  Vernon  with  the  view  of  obtaining  a  sight  of  it.  But  be- 
ing informed  that  Judge  Washington  was  on.  his  circuit,  I  relin- 
quished the  idea. 

Fi/tlUy.  Fai'ing  to  procure  a  copy  of  the  address,  through  the 
assistance  oi'  my  friends,  I  next  applied  to  the  editors  of  the 
Baltimore  "American,''  supposing  as  it  was  an  old  paper,  they  JHJ 
could  give  me  some  information  that  might  serve  as  a  clue  to  the  jH 
business.  They  informed  me  that  they  had  ro  papers  "  so  far 
back,"  but  in  all  probability  i  could  find  them  in  tiie  Baltimore 
Library. 

Sixthly,  f  next  applied  to  the  librarian  in  the  Baltimore  Li- 
brary, who  not  onl5'  allowed  me  to  search  the  newspapers  in  the 
library,  but  politely  assisted  me  in  making  the  search.  In  this 
way  1  spent  the  greater  part  of  a  day,  but  all  in  vain. 

Seventhly.  Disappointed  in  every  efiort  I  had  made,either  to 
get  a  copy  of  the  address,  or  to  ascertain  its  date,  i  published 
my  j^amphict,  under  the  solemn  belief  that  Mr.  Diew-'.s  statement 
was  true,  and  that  the  date  of  the  address  was  1785,  and  not 
1789. 

Eighthly.  Shortly  after  my  pamphlet  came  out  of  press,  Mr. 
Sparks's  letters  to  judge  Story  were  published  in  the  newspap- 
ers :  in  which  he  stated  that  he  had  obtained  geneial  Washing- 
ton's papers.  As  soon  as  I  read  these  letters,  .'  determined  to 
apply  to  Mr.  Sparks,  to  know  if  a  copy  of  the  address  could  be 
procured  from  him.     Being  a  stranger  to  Mr.  Sparks,  1  waited 


129 

on  a  gentleman  of  this  city  to  get  a  letter  of  introduction  to  Mr. 
Sparks.  This  gentleman  very  politely  and  promptly  complied 
with  my  wishes,  I  then  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Sparks,  ac- 
companied with  one  of  my  pamphlets,  and  received  from  him  the 
following  answer. 

"  Sir.  Boston,  July  a7th,  1827. 

It  has  given  me  pleasure  to  comply  with  your  request,  in  look- 
ing over  general  Washington's  papers  for  the  address  of  doctor 
Coke  and  bishop  Asbury.  The  original  paper  (  do  not  find, 
hut  the  addi'ess  is  recorded  with  the  date  ofMay  the  hoenty -ninth 
1789.  In  your  pamphlet,  the  date  is  stated  to  be  May  the  nine- 
teenth. A  mistake  of  a  figure  has,  in  some  way,  crept  in.  As 
to  the  year',  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  same  error  has  happened  ; 
that  is,  9  has  been  altered  to  5.  It  is  a  little  singular,  to  be  sure, 
that  two  such  errois  should  have  occurred  in  one  date.  Whether 
it  admits  of  explanation,  I  know  not. 

General  Washington  was  never  president  of  congress;  nor  is 
it  probable  that  any  address  of  a  public  nature  would  have  been 
made  to  him  in  the  year  1785,  when  he  was  living  at  Mount 
Vernon,  as  a  private  citizen.  I  should  think  circumstances  would 
be  very  conclusive  against  this  latter  date. 

The  address  and  reply  as  recorded  are  word  for  word,  as 
printed  in  your  pamphlet,  except  one  instance  in  the  reply 
where  three  words  are  omitled.  Thus,  instead  of — "it^hall  still 
be  my  endeavour  to  manifest  the  purity  of  my  inclinations," — 
it  is  expressed  in  the  records  as  follows — ":t  shall  be  my  endea- 
vour to  manifest,  by  overt  acts,  the  purity  of  my  inclinations."  Jn 
all  other  respects  the  printed  copy  is  an  exact  transcript. 

I  am.  Sir,  very  respectfully,  your  most  obedient  servant 

Jared  Si' arks'" 
From  this  plain,  unvarnished  account  of  the  pains  I  took  to  as- 
certain the  date  of  this  address,  the  reader  will  be  able  to  form 
an  opinion,  respecting  the  justness  of  the  charge,  preferred  in  the 
following  words.  "-Any  former  publisher  might  have  overlooked 
an  error  in  the  narrative,  as  a  court  in  the  ordinary  routine  of 
business  without  investigation  or  argument,  or  having  tlie  atten- 
tion directed  to  the  points  in  the  case.  But  Mr.  M'Caine's  error 
is  that  of  a  court  solemnly  deliberating,  hearing  the  arguments  of 
counsel,  taking  time  to  advise,  and  then  pronouncing  a  most  gla- 
ringly unfounded  and  injurious  decision,  against  all  evidence  and 
reason,  and  all  justice  and  truth."  Def  p.  81. 

1.  The  decision  which  I  pronounced,  so  far  from  being 
"against  all  eviderice  and  reason,  and  all  justice  and  truth,''  was 
pronounced  with  the  utmost  respect  for  tlie  testimony,  and  with 
the  utmost  reliance  on  the  respectability  of  the  witness.  The 
witness  was  the  Rev.  Mr.  Drew,  Dr.  Coke's  biographer;  a  gen- 
tleman who  was  selected,  by  the  doctor  himself,  to  write  hig 
life;  and  who  placed  in  Mr.  Drew's  hands,  all  his  papers  fortha 
9 


ISO 

purpose.  Mr.  Drew  holds  a  very  distinguished  rank  in  the  reli- 
gious and  literary  world.  He  is  a  minister  in  the  Methodin}  so- 
ciety in  England;  the  author  of  two  celebrated  metaphyFical 
"works,  and  editor  of  the  Imperial  Magazine.  Was  not  this  gen- 
tleman a  competent,  and  credible  witness.''  Would  not  his  testi- 
mony be  received  in  any  court  of  justice  as  soon  as  Mr.  E's?  And 
ii  I  had  been  so  weak  or  wicked  as  to  pronounce  a  decision 
against  such  testimony,  then  indeed  it  might  have  been  said  that 
my  decision  was  "against  all  evidence  and  reason,  and  against  all 
justice  and  truth."     As  it  is,  the  imputation  returns  to  Mr.  E. 

2.  It  ought  also  to  be  known  that  the  Rev,  Mr.  Drew  was 
deemed  a  competent  and  credible  witness  by  the  Methodist  so- 
ciety in  England.  His  "Life  of  Dr.  Coke"  was  so  highly  appre- 
ciated, that  it  was  published  by  the  British  connexion,  and  sold 
by  the  preachers  "in  town  and  country." 

3.  This  work  has  been  re-published  in  this  country  at  the  Meth- 
odist book-room.  it  has  been  sold  by  the  preachers  all  over  the 
United  States — has  been  eulogised  in  the  strongest  terms  possi- 
ble— and  has  been  lately  recommended  to  the  members  of  the 
society  without  even  an  index  expurgatorious. 

4,  From  this  work,  Drew's  Life  of  Coke,  I  derived  every 
particle  of  information  I  possessed  at  that  time  upon  the  subject 
of  the  "address,"  and  the  punishment  inflicted  on  the  I'octor  for 
presenting  it.  In  the  decision  which  I  pronounced  on  this  mat- 
ter, 1  gave  Mr.  Drew  as  authority  for  all  i  advanced  :  of  course, 
if  there  w^as  any  "error,"  it  was  Mr  Drew's;  not  mine.  This  Mr, 
E.  knew  well,  when  he  wrote  the  above  charge  ;  as  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  he  represented  the  subject  in  the  same  point 
of  light,  notwithstanding  all  the  pains  he  took  to  manufacture  his 
quotations. 

Section  XVIII. — History  and  Afystcry  ofJ\Ir.J\rCktinc''s 
inconsistency. 

If  any  thing  unfair  or  untrue,  coming  from  Mr.  E's  pen,  could 
surprise  me,  I  certainly  should  be  surprised  at  the  contents  of 
this  section.  In  reviewing  a  former  section  of  his  work,  1  per- 
ceived he  had  not  once  mentioned  my  name  ;  but  he  has  made 
ample  amends  for  this  omission,  by  appropriating  a  whole  sec- 
tion to  the  "history  and  mystery"  of  my  "inconsistency."  He 
has  reserved  the  history  of  my  alleged  "inconsistency"  to  the 
last,  with  a  view,  I  suppose,  of  making  a  deeper  impression;  and 
this,  he  thinks,  will  clinch  the  nail  which  he  supposed  he  had 
so  surely  driven.  But  when  the  reader  is  made  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  facts,  to  which  Mr.  E.  has  alluded,  and  which 
he  has  distorted  and  discoloured,  the  odium  which  was  intended 
to  be  fixed  on  me,  will  in  the  end  fall  upon  himself. 

When  I  was  printing  my  "History  and  Mystery,"  the  printer 
informed  me,  there  would  be  two  or  three  spare  pages,  and 


131 

wished  me  to  furnish  matter  to  fill  them  'up.  This  induced 
me  to  sketch  the  plan,  which  is  given  in  the  "conckjsion."  Iq 
this  sketch,  I  distinctly  stated,  that  the  plan  was  entirely  my 
own;  and  that  it  did  not  emanate  from  the  "brethren  who  are  in 
favor  of  representation."  I  was  explicit  in  making  this  statement, 
lest  the  plan  should  be  objected  to  as  speaking  the  language  of 
reformers  generally,  or  as  being  sanctioned  by  them.  One  of  the 
articles  in  this  plan  runs  thus  :  "Let  the  name  of  bishop  and  the 
episcopal  office,  as  it  now  exists  among  us,  be  put  away  for  ever," 
&c.  With  a  view  of  preventing  objections,  or  weakening  them 
if  made,  the  project  was  submitted  as  the  production  of  a  single 
individual.  Of  one,  who  was  willing  to  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  the  majority  of  his  reforming  brethren,  if  they  "thought  it 
best  to  relinquisli  any  or  all  of  them,"  for  the  present.  Of  one, 
who  arrogated  no  right  to  dictate,  and  who  gave  an  assurance  in 
his  statement,  that  lie  would  co-operate  with  his  reforming 
brethren  in  any  way,  that  would  be  likely  to  secure  the  great 
principle  of  "Representation."  "VVe  hope,  therefore,"  this  was 
my  language,  "no  attempt  will  be  made  to  withhold  representa- 
tion from  the  laity  on  account  of  any  objections  which  may  be 
made  against  the  specified  items  of  change.  We  are  not  tena- 
cious of  tlicm.  But  re)>reseiitation  from  the  local  ministry  and 
laity,  by  the  help  of  God,  we  will  never  relinquish.  This,  with 
us,  is  a  sine  qua  no/i." 

Perceiving  that  every  word  in  this  quotation  contradicted  and 
refuted  the  slanderous  reports  put  in  ciiculation  b}  some  in  high 
stations,  that  I  only  wanted  to  be  the  head  of  a  party,  Mr.  E.  im- 
proves upon  a  suggestion  offered  by  Dr.  Bond.  The  doctor  had 
said  of  me,  "if  he  believes  all  that  he  has  written  in  the  previous 
part  of  his  book,  and  would  be  satisfied  with  this,  he  offers  a 
base  and  disgracefitl  compromise."  Truth-loving  and  slander- 
hating  Dr.  Bond  who  is  almost  afraid  to  open  his  mouth,  lest  an 
untruth  or  a  slander  should  slip  out,  ushers  in  his  conclusion 
with  an  "if:'"  and  modest  Dr.  Emoi-y  (par  nobilc  fratrum)  asks, 
"is  Mr.  M'Caine  sincereP""  Yes,  gentlemen,  I  believed  the  state- 
ments made  in  my  book,  and  I  was  ^'•sincere*'*  in  making  them. 
And  although  you  have  both  tried  your  skill,  you  have  not  been 
able  to  disprove  them,  or  shake  their  credibility  in  the  least. 

Mr.  E.  asks  "Docs  he  really  mean,  after  all  he  has  said,  that 
if  admitted  into  the  general  conference,  he  would  not  be  tenacious 
of  doing  away  the  name  of  bishop,  and  the  episcopal  office  as  it 
now  exists  among  us  .''  Or  does  he  say  this,  lest  by  saying  other- 
wise, at  this  juncture,  he  might  dash  from  his  lips  the  cup  of 
sweets.""' 

To  this  I  answer.  I.  I  was  a  member  of  general  conferences 
long  before  Mr.  E.  was  a  member  of  the  church,  and  never  found 
them  to  ofl'er  "a  cup  of  sweets."  2.  Since  1  have  been  engaged 
in  the  cause  of  reform,  I  never  liad  the  least  wish  or  desire  to  be 
a  member  of  a  general  conference.     3.  The  expressions  which 


132 

he  has  attempted  to  distort,  and  place  to  the  account  of  my  *'in- 

coi.'sistency,"'' were  not  intended  to  piocure  for  iii}selt  "a  cup  of 
sweets;""  but  to  prevent  objections  to  the  sketch,  procure  unani- 
mity among  reformers,  and  shew,  that  notwithstanding  ;  might 
have  my  own  views  of  the  subject,  yet  I  was  willing  to  submit 
to  the  will  of  the  majority.  4.  The  expression  of  these  sentiments, 
intended  to  be  applied  to  the  incipi<^nt  stage  of  the  business, 
cannot  be  construed  as  a  pledge,  promise  oi  assurance,  that  at  a 
future  period  1  would  be  wanting  in  my  exertions  to  "do  away 
the  name  ot  bishop  and  the  episcopal  othce  as  it  now  exists 
among  us."  5  hi  proposing  to  put  away  the  name  of  bishop,  and 
to  abolish  the  episcopal  office  as  it  noic  exists  among  us.,  I  con- 
ceived 1  Mas  onl^  reiteiating  Mr.  V\  esley's  advice  who  entreied 
Mr.  Asbury  in  the  most  tender  manner,  and  by  the  most  sacttd 
and  powerful  considerations  to  put  away  the  title,  ti.  Perhaps 
some  may  feel  that  I  have  done  as  much,  to  say  the  least,  as  any 
other  man,  to  put  away  tiie  title.  They  may  be  fear(ul  that  as 
1  had  begun,  so  I  intended  to  go  on,  until  at  last,  the  object  of 
their  highest  ambition  would  be  prostrated  in  the  dust. 

"  But  a  still  more  extraordinary  mystery  of  inconsistency," 
says  Mr.  E.  "  remains  to  be  developed."  To  make  out  this 
"  inconsistency,"  he  compaies  one  of  the  reasons,  which  I  as- 
signed in  the  preface  to  my  "•  History  and  Viystery,"  for  the 
publication  of  that  work,  with  a  "communication,"  which  I 
made  "in  a  way  to  reach  .episcopal  ears."  hi  the  preface,  I 
said,  "  I  think  this  exposure  of  the  manner  in  which  episcopacy 
was  foisted  upon  the  societies,  will  tend  mucri  to  lessen,  if  it 
will  not  totally  overcome,  the  o|)position  ot'  travelling  preachers 
to  representation.''''  In  the  communication  which  reached  epis- 
copal ears,  (Mr.  E.  ought  to  have  !-aid  episcopal  eves  unless  he 
means  that  a  Methodist  bishop  sees  with  his  ears  instead  of  his 
exes,)  I  am  represented  as  saving,  "atfection  and  veneration  for 
episcopal  men  might,  and  no  doubt  would  lead  a  local  repre- 
sentation to  support  a  measure"  which  they  had  no  immediate 
and  direct  interest  in  opj)Osing  !  Thus,  by  exposure  of  episco- 
pacy <md  of  episcopal  men,  Mr.  Ai'Caine  exerts  himself,  on  one 
side  to  overcome  the  opposition  of  travelling  pieachers  to  the 
representation  of  local  preachers.  And  at  the  same  time,  on  the 
other  side,  he  endeavours  to  convince  episcopal  men,  that  the 
repiesentation  ot  local  pieachers  will  tend  to  conhrm  and  to 
perpetuate  their  prerogative.''  Had  1  been  guilty  of  this  Dou- 
ble Dealing,  and  made  this  "  communication  at  the  same  time.,''' 
when  1  made  the  "exposure"  to  which  reference  is  made  in  my 
preiace,  I  wouki  have  been  like  a  lauijer  v\  horn  I  once  knew, 
who  look  a  fee  from  both  planititi  and  defendant  in  the  same 
suit.  But  when  the  case  came  to  be  tiied,  this  gentleman  could 
rot  play  "Jack  of  both  sides"  any  longer.  His  iniquitous 
conduct  was  delected,  and  from  the  court  and  an  incensed  coui- 
mumty,  he  met  his  just  reward. 


133 

But  how  camo  Mr.  E.  by  his  knowledge  of  the  "  communi- 
cation" to  which  he  alludes  ?  How  came  he  by  my  private  and 
conjidential  letter  to  bishop  Georije  ^  As  he  has  not  told  us,  I 
tl)inlc  ran  inform  the  reader  ;  and  if  there  be  no  "  mystery  of 
iniquity'"  in  the  transaction,  there  is,  at  least,  something  that 
looks  very  much  like  it. 

In  the  summer  of  1822,  bishop  George  called  at  my  house, 
with  an  intention  of  semi  nig  his  son  to  my  academy,  lie  break- 
fasted with  me  ;  and  in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  which 
turned  upon  the  presiding  elder  question,  1  said,  "  what  is  it  to 
me  as  a  local  preacher,  whether  the  bishop  appoints  the  pie- 
siding  elder,  or  whether  lie  is  elected  by  the  annual  conference. 
1  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  abstract  question  ;  and  consider- 
ing it  as  an  abstract  question,  it  is  not  worth  a  shankless  button." 
In  this  opinion  Mr.  George  concurred,  expressing  his  "sur- 
prise that  Mr.  McKendree  would  throw  ihe  connexion  into  a 
flame  for  a  thing, which,  in  the  abstract,  was  not  worth  a  straw." 

in  March  1823,  the  Baltimore  district  conference  appointed 
Dr.  S.  K.  Jennings,  Rev.  J.  II.  Williams  and  myself,  "  a  com- 
mittee of  correspondence  to  make  communications  to  other  ad- 
jacent district  cont'erences,  inviting  them  to  co-operate  in  a  me- 
morial to  the  next  general  conference."  See  Wesleyan  Reposi- 
tory, vol.  3,  p.  41.  The  committee  performed  their  duty,  and 
sent  a  copy  of  their  "  circular"  to  Mr.  Bangs,  editor  of  the 
Metliodist  iVIagazine,  and  to  Mr.  StociClon,  editor  of  the  Wes- 
leyan Repository,  for  publication.  Mr.  Stockton  published  the 
"circular"  but  Mr.  Bangs  would  not.  When  Mr.  Bangs  re- 
fused to  give  this  document  a  place  in  the  Magazine,  i  deter- 
mined to  become  a  subscriber  to  the  Wesleyan  Repository,  and 
addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Stockton,  on  that  subject.  See  Wes- 
leyan Repository,  vol.  3,  page  120. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  reformers  in  Baltimore  in  May  1824,  tliey 
resolved  l:o  institute  a  new  work  to  be  called  the  *'  Mutual 
Rights,"  and  to  place  the  same  under  the  control  of  a  commit- 
tee of  four  local  preachers,  and  four  laymen.  1  was  elected  one 
of  that  committee.  On  the  2oth  of  Feb.  1825,  bishop  George 
wrote  me  a  letter,  in  which  he  censured  me  severely,  for  the 
part  I  had  taken,  as  one  of  the  editorial  committee,  in  publishing 
that  work.  To  this  letter  1  sent  an  answer,  and  this  answer  n 
the  "  communication  which  reached  episcopal  ears."  The 
reader  will  bear  in  mind,  that  to  the  period  when  I  wrote  this 
answer,  1  liad  not  commenced  writing  my  "  History  and  Mys- 
tery ;"  nor  had  I  any  thought  of  doing  it.  All  that  Air.  E.  has 
said  about  my  being  *■'■  several  years  in  preparing  that  work," 
and  of  making  the  "  communication  which  reached  episcopal 
ears  during  the  very  period  in  which  he  was  engaged  in  pre- 
paring his  book,"  Del',  p.  87,  is  absolutely  false.  On  the  4th 
of  April  1826,1  was  selected  to  deliver  a  lecture  before  the 
Union  Society  of  Baltimore.     I  chose  lor  my  subject  the  gov- 


134 

ernment  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church.  From  various 
considerations  I  was  induced  to  commit  it  to  writing  ;  and  I 
commenced  writing  it  according  to  the  views  I  had  entertained, 
respecting  the  origin  of  tlie  episcopacy,  for  28  years.  But 
when  1  began  to  examine  the  records  of  the  church,  and  collate 
them  closely  and  critically,  I  found  I  had  been  in  an  error  all 
that  time.  I  soon  discovered,  that  the  records  of  the  church 
did  not  support  my  former  opiuions,  and  as  I  proceeded  in  the 
investigation  I  was  more  and  more  convinced  that  these  records 
were  not  and  could  not  be,  the  true  and  original  ones.  The 
lecture  was  prepared  and  read  before  the  Union  Society  on 
the  6th  of  June  following,  as  the  subjoined  certificate  will  prove. 

"April  4th,  1826.  A  committee  was  selected  for  the  pur- 
pose of  selecting  a  lecturer,  who  chose  Bro.  M'Caine.'' 

"June  6th,  1826.  According  to  appointment,  a  lecture  was 
delivered  by  the  Rev.  Alexander  M'Caine."  ''  This  is  to  cer- 
tity  that  the  above  are  correct  extracts  from  the  Journal  of  the 
Baltimore  Union  Society.     Oct.  24,  1828. 

Levi  R.  Reese,  Sec'ry  of  the  Bait.  Union  Society." 

I  ask  now  where  is  my  "  inconsistency  .-"'  where,  my  double 
dealing  ?  The  "  inconsistency"  is  in  Mr.  E's  "  own  mind,"  or 
in  his  own  heart.  Long  after  1  had  written  my  answer  to  bishop 
George's  letter,  '  was  convinced  of  the  falsity  of  the  records  of 
the  church,  and  made  the  "exposure"  promptly.  1  know  that 
this  "exposure"  is  not  the  way  to  secure  Methodist  favor.  It 
is  not  the  way  to  obtain  a  taste  of  the  "  cup  of  sweets  ;"  nor  is 
it  the  high  road  to  the  greatest  benefice  in  the  Methodist  church. 
Had  Mr.  George  lived,  1  should  certainly  say  more  of  our  cor- 
respondence, than  I  shall  at  present.  One  thing,  however,  in 
justice  to  myself  must  be  told  :  that  his  correspondence  was 
marked  "in  confidence"  and  "  friendly  and  confidential."  Mine 
was  "  friendly  and  confidential"  also.  This  "  confidence''  the 
Methodist  bisliop  betrayed.  And  now  Mr.  E.  boasts  he  has  "a 
copy  of  a  letter  from  one  of  the  editorial  committee  in  his 
pocket"  which  letter  I  believe  to  be  the  one  I  wrote  to  Mr. 
George!!!  For  the  purpose  of  making  me  infamous,  he  has 
used  it  in  the  "  Defence  oPour  Fathers,"  and  plays  it  otf  against 
the  "exposure,''  made  in  my  pamphlet,  as  a  proof  of  ray  "in- 
consistency." By  this  detestable  conduct  he  has  violated  the 
sacredness  of  a  "  confidential"  correspondence,  which  is  con- 
sidered, by  every  honourable  man,  to  be  an  act  no  better  than 
the  breach  of  any  other  trust. 

1  sliall  now  present  the  reader  with  bishop  George's  letter, 
and  so  much  of  my  answer  as  relates  to  what  Mr.  E.  has  called 
my  "  inconsistency."  At  some  future  day  1  hope  to  be  able  to 
find  room  for  the  entire  correspondence  in  the  "  Mutual  Rights 
and  Christian  Intelligencer." 

"February  25th,  1825. 

*'  My  dear  brotJier — It  will  perliaps,  be  recollected  by  thee, 
and  me,  that  during  30  years  we  have  kept  up  a  pleasant  ac- 


135 

quaintance,  that  is  to  say,  we  have  generally  met  with  pleasure 
and  part  *d  in  peace  ;  no  changes  of  season  or  place  lias  made 
any  change  in  our  minds,  my  opinion  has  ahvays  been  that  youv 
Cardinal  point  has  been  the  glory  of  God.  Although  some  of  our 
friends  have  thought  you  in  some  cases  severely  zealous  for  and 
against  principles  which  you  have  espoused,  or  rejected,  yet 
impartial  investigation  has  proved  to  me  that  you  were  pursu- 
ing what  in  your  opinion  was  the  noble  principles  odnoraL  jiiS' 
tice  and  good  order. 

After  these  preliminary  remarks  I  wish  to  call  your  attention 
to  a  subject  which  to  me  is  of  the  first  importance  ;  its  proba- 
ble you  will  bear  with  me  though  you  may  think  me  mistaken 
in  my  views,  &c.  &c.     The  subject  is,  the  opinions  introduced 
into  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  set  on  float  all  over  the  continent  as 
far  as  the  committee  has  means  and  patronage.     Finding  your 
name  among  the  editorial  and  circulating  committee  ;   it  is  my 
decided  opinion,  that  in  all  the  numbers  there  are  opinions  which 
are  clearly  inadmissable  ;  but  in  the  6th  No.  there  are  things 
which   to    me  are  superlatively  alarming,  and   its  presumable 
yourself  and  the  men  associated  with  you  holds  yourselves  re- 
sponsible to  all  the  Tribunals  in  Heaven  and  upon  Earth  for  the 
truth  and  verity  of  all  the  things  found  in  the  numbers  in  general  ; 
and  the  6th  No.  in  particular.     Then  permit  me  to  ask  you  one 
or  two  questions  :  the  first  is  what  induced  the  Committee  to 
Publish  a  weakly  bill  of  charges  against  Itinnerant  Missionaries 
for  the  board  of  themselves  and  Horses  ?  the  question  continued, 
did  you  ever  hear  of  such   a  business  in  Europe   or  America 
among  infidels  or  christiaiis,  that  a  man  who  asked  an  Itinne- 
rant Missionary  to  his  house  that  he  might  comfort  him  a  few 
hours  with  the  accommodations  necessary  to  pursue  his  labours 
that  in  the  Morning  charged  him   for  his  lodgings.     The  only 
inference  that  I  can  draw  from  this  unaccountable  bill  is  that 
the  Committee  must  have  wandered  out  of  every  beaten  track 
tlmt  has  ever  been  heard  of  that  they  might  roll  a  ponderous 
Mountain  on  the  Itinnerant  institutions  and  crush  them,  and  then 
leap  on   the   top  of  their  towering  Mountain,  and  shout  aloud 
how  high  we  are  ?    You  know  who  it  is  that  saith  he,  and  of 
course  they,  who  exalt  themselves  shall  be  abased  :  take  care 
how  you  triffle  with  these  institutions  which  has  had  Jehovah 
for  their  Guardian  for  more  than  half  a  Century  ;  and  you  or 
your  Committee,  and  Satellites  cannot  clearly  prove  that  the 
Glory  has  departed. — one  more  question  why  wander  over  the 
sea,  take  up  what  you  consider  an  improper  act  of  administra- 
tion among  our  European  brethren  ?    do  you  think  them  incom- 
petent to  correct  their  own  errors,  and  direct  their  own  institu- 
tions ?    Or  do  you  as  a  Committee  set  yourselves  up  as  general 
reviewers  with  talent  and  Prerogatives  tj  correct  the  errors  of 
all  churches  .-'    Tliis  looks  very  much  like  a  consequential  flight 
upward.     Permit  me  to  say  it  looks  a  little  like  any  port  in  a 


13« 

storm,  that  is  Let  us  conceal  our  March,  but  crush  the  Itinne- 
rant  institutions.  Perhaps  you  will  say,  these  are  hard  ques- 
tions, and  their  application  grievous  to  be  borne :  I  cannot  in 
conscience  say  any  thing  more  pleasant  if  any  thing  is  said  by 
me  on  this  awful  and  terrific  subject.  My  opinion  is  that  Mr. 
Stockton  and  his  Patrons,  the  Committee  and  their  supporters 
have  all  comparatively  speaking  been  burning  and  flaming  under 
the  influence  of  a  fannattical  and  schismattical  zeal,  which  has 
long  since  leaped  the  bounds  of  rational  investigation,  i  look 
upon  you  as  men  who  consider  themselves  injured  in  their 
rights,  and  when  you  come  together  you  meet  as  men  who  have 
in  their  hands  burning  torches  which  you  immediately  put  to- 
gether and  you  instantly  cry  we  are  warm  we  are  oppresed, 
and  having  no  ballance  of  Power  in  your  councils  none  to  mode- 
Tate  your  feelings  you  all  with  consent  commence  your  opera- 
tions with  a  stedfast  determination  to  destroy  tyranny  and  ty- 
rants, and  seem  to  forget  that  eleven  twelfths  of  your  brethren 
have  any  rights  at  all ;  for  you  will  permit  me  to  know  the 
spirit  of  Baltimore,  Norfolk,  and  the  Roanoak  District.  And  I 
know  your  plans  in  the  General  are  held  in  sovereign  contempt. 
And  upon  your  plans  you  have  no  more  probability  of  producing 
a  reformation  than  you  have  to  sweep  down  Jupiter  and  his 
Satellites  with  your  feeble  fingers — I  conclude  with  pleading 
with  my  Bro.  to  quit  this  unimportant  business  and  help  us  to 
get  precious  souls  t©  Heaven. 

I  am  yours  as  ever  in  vonfidence,  Enoch  George." 
Mr.  George  having  charged  me  and  the  rest  of  the  editorial 
committee,  with  a  design  to  crush  the  itinerant  institutions,  I 
replied  in  the  following  extract,  and  it  is  to  this  part  of  my  let- 
ter Mr  E.  refers,  and  this  he  adduces  as  proof  of  the  "mystery 
of  my  inconsistency." 

*'Ilow   can  a  representation  from   the  local  ministry  "crush 
the    itinerant    institutions?"      When,    in   the  first  place  every 
man  that  is  returned  to  the   general  conference,  is  supposed  to 
love   "  the  itinerant   institutions,"    comparatively  speaking,  as 
he  loves  his  life:  and  secondly,  when  there  is  a  guarantee  for  the 
perpetuity  of  itinerancy  in  the  attachment  of  his  electors  to  its 
institutions.      How  is   it   possible  that  such   a   representation 
could  destroy  itinerancy.-*     Would  it  intertere  with  the  episco- 
pal  prerogative   of  appointing    the    presiding  elders?      Every 
body   knows  that  this  is  a   subject   which  cannot  affect  local 
preachers.     I  say   again,   what  1  once  said  to  you  at  my  own 
house,  "  what  is  it  to  me,  as  a  local  preacher  whether  the  bishop 
appoints  the  presiding  elder,  or  whether  he  is  elected  by  the 
annual  conference.      I  have   nothing  to   do  with   the  abstract 
question,  and  considering  it  as  an  abstract  question,  it  is  not 
worth  a  shankless  button.''     In  this  opinion  you  concurred,  ex- 
pressing your  surprise,  that  Mr.  M'Kendree  would  throw  the 
tioouexion  into  a  flame  for  a  thing,  which,  in  the  abstract,  was 


137 

not  worth  a  straw.  This  is  a  matter,  however,  that  concerns 
the  travelling  preachers  themselves,  and  if  the  shifting  of  this 
power  into  other  hands,  should  ever  criuiile  or  "  crush  the  itin- 
erant institutions,"  it  will  be  done  by  the  travel ii'ia:,  and  not  by 
the  local  preachers.  Indeed,  if  I  may  take  the  liberty  cf  ex- 
pressing all  my  mind  upon  this  subject,  the  probability  would 
be  greater,  for  the  continuance  of  the  exercise  of  this  preroga- 
tive from  a  local  representation,  than  williont  it;  ibr  the  atlec- 
tion  and  veneration  for  episcopal  men,  might,  and  no  doubt 
would  lead  a  local  representation  to  support  a  measure,  which 
they  had  no  immediate  and  direct  interest  in  opposing.  Would 
representation  from  local  preachers  allect  the  prerogative  of 
the  episcopacy  to  appoint  the  travelling  preachers  to  their  res- 
pective stations  and  circuits?  I  think  not.  And  1  am  at  the- 
greatest  loss  to  conceive,  how  it  can  be  thought  to  interfere  with 
that  part  of  our  economy,  or  be  made  to  bear  upon  that  prerog- 
ative." 

I  will  now  submit  to  the  candid  reader  to  decide,  whether 
tliere  has  been  any  inconsistency  in  my  conduct.  In  the  first 
place,  when  I  wrote  my  letter  to  bishop  George,  I  only  ad- 
verted to  a  subject,  upon  which  we  had  freely  and  fully  con- 
versed, when  we  were  last  together.  I  did  not,  tlierefore,  con- 
sider it  necessary  to  be  more  particular,  or  more  guarded  in  my 
observations;  especially  when  I  had  not  the  most  distant 
thought,  that  bishop  George  would  give  my  private  and  conji- 
dential  correspondence.,  to  a  man,  whom  he  kneiv  to  be  my  per- 
sonal and  avowed  enemy,  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  my  charac- 
ter. In  the  second  place,  when  I  commenced  the  examination  of 
the  origin  of  Methodist  episcopacy,  it  was  a  year  after  the  dale 
of  my  letter  to  bishop  George.  This  examination  resulted  in 
the  development  of  facts  and  circumstances,  which  have  been 
published  in  my  "History  and  Mystery."  Of  tliese  facts  and 
circumstances  I  had  no  knowledge  when  I  wrote  to  bishop 
George;  consequently  there  can  be  no  ground  for  the  charge  of 
*' inconsistency,""  in  making  this  "exposure,"  as  contrasted  with 
the  declarations  in  my  letter.  In  the  third  place,  Mr.  George 
did  not  consider  that  this  com-uunication  was  made  for  the  pur- 
pose that  Mr.  E.  intimates  it  was.  For  in  the  next  letter  he 
wrote  me  be  expressed  himself  thus:  "  upon  examination  I 
think  it  my  duty  to  say  that  I  find  in  your  letter,  what  i  have 
always  found  in  you,  that  is  a  disposition  to  be  konesily  se- 
vere." So  that  even  Mr.  George  himself,  convicts  Mr.  E.  of 
writing  that  u  hich  is  not  true. 

Section  XIX. — Recapilidalion  and  Conclusion. 

I  HAVE  substituted  the  above  title,  lor  the  one  which  stands 
in  the  "Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  as  being  more  appropriate  to 
th  e  contents  of  this  section.     I  deem  il  of  more  impoiiance 


158 

brinaf  into  a  small  compass,  the  principal  facts  which  are  noticed 
in  my  "History  and  Mystery"  than  to  reply  at  length  to  the  whin- 
ins:  appeal  which  Mr.  E.  makes,  to  the  passions  of  his  readers. 
If  Mr.  Asbury's  remains  having  been '"deposited  under  the  pulpit 
of  Eutaw  church,"  can  impart  any  ministerial  qualifications,  or 
promote  the  spiritual  improvement  of  the  congregation  who  wor- 
ship in  that  house,  it  is  a  most  felicitous  event  for  the  preachers 
who  ascend  that  pulpit,  and  for  the  congregation  who  assemble 
there.  Or  if  it  will  undeniably  and  conclusively  follow,  because 
"his  ashes  re«t  there  in  peace  as  in  a  sacred  and  chosen  asylum," 
that  Methodist  episcopacy  is  valid;  that  there  are  three  orders 
of  ministers  in  that  church;  and  that  Mr.  Wesley  recommended 
the  episcopal  form  of  government;  then  indeed,  we  have  a  nevr 
system  of  logic,  and  Mr.  E.  has  obtained  for  himself,  an  impe- 
rishable fame,  as  being  the  author  of  it. 

'•The  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  had  not  forgotten  that  the 
remains  of  bishop  Asbury  were  disinterred  and  removed  from 
Virginia."  "They  had  not  forgotten  that  these  remains  were 
deposited  in  this  city."  "They  had  not  forgotten  the  solemnities 
with  which  they  were  placed  under  the  pulpit  in  Eutaw  church." 
All  these  things  they  knew;  and  all  these  things  they  remember- 
ed. They  knew,  also,  that  none  of  these  things  made  for,  or 
against,  the  statements  in  the  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist 
episcopacy.  They  knew,  they  neither  confirmed  their  truth, 
nor  proved  their  falsehood.  They  had,  therefore,  no  reason  to 
allude  to  these  transactions;  nor  had  they  any  inclination  to  dis- 
turb those  remains.  There  is  not  a  man  of  them  who  would  en- 
ter the  "sacred  asylum  of  the  dead,"  bring  up  those  remains, 
and  expose  them  to  public  view,  to  promote  the  cause  of  reform; 
any  more,  than  they  would  imitate  the  mmatural  conduct  of 
Tullia,  who  drove  over  her  father's  dead  body,  which  lay  in  her 
way  to  the  senate  house.  If  other  men  can  enter  the  charnel- 
house  for  arguments  to  promote  their  cause,  if  they  can  convert 
the  "remains"  of  the  dead  into  steps,  to  reach  their  object,  such 
sacrilegious  conduct  ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  any  of  the 
members  of  the  Union  society  of  Baltimore. 

Having  made  these  passing  remarks  upon  the  lOtli  section  of 
the  ''Defencfe  of  our  Fathers,"  I  shall  now  recapitulate  some  of  the 
principal  facts,  which  are  mentioned  in  my  History  and  Mys- 
tery :  the  first  of  which  regards  the  different  views  which  eccle- 
siastical writers  give  us  of  episcopacy.  I  stated  that  Episcopa- 
lians, in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term  are  divided  into  three  class- 
es. That,  although  they  differ  among  themselves  respecting  the 
origin  of  the  superiority  of  bishops  ;  yet,  they  all  agree  in 
one  particular,  viz.  that  bishops  are  a  distinct  order  from  pres- 
byiers,  and  superior  to  them.  This  superiority  I  gave  as  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  term;  and  on  this  poiut  there  has  been 
no  misrepresentation.     This  is  the  first  fact. 

2nd  Faet.     The  first  section  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  book 


139 

of  discipline,  which  purports  to  be  an  account  "of  the  origin  of 
the  Methodist  episcopal  cliurch,"  was  not  written  for  upvvards 
o(  seven  years  after  the  church  was  organized;  and  not  until  after 
the  death  of  Mr,  Wesley. 

3d  Fact.  There  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  subject  matter 
of  the  "-loregoiiig  account,"  and  Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  dated  Sep. 
10. 1784,  inserted  in  the  minutes  of  conference;  which  letter,  it  is 
said,  "will  afford  as  good  an  explanation  as  can  be  given  of  the 
subject;*'  viz  "for  becoming  a  separate  body  under  the  denomi- 
nation of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church.'*  Any  one  who  will 
take  the  trouble  to  compare  these  accounts,  will  hud  there  is  no 
misrepresentation  here. 

4th  Fact.  An  account  differing  from  both  the  foregoing  (No.  2 
and  3)  is  given  in  a  chapter. of  the  book  of  discipline  printed  in 
New- York  in  1795.  This  chapter  has  long  since,  been  expunged 
as  contradicting  the  "account"  given  in  cli  1.  sec.  I.  of  tlie  pre- 
sent book  of  discipline.  The  reader  will  hnd  this  chapter  on  the 
the  18th  page  of  my  History  and  Mystery.  In  it  neither  Mr. 
Wesley's  preference  for  the  episcopal  form  of  government,  nor 
his  recommendation  of  that  form,  nor  his  letter  of  Sep.  iO.  1784 
has  been  glanced  at.  The  adoption  of  the  episcopal  form  is  made 
to  rest  on  other  grounds  than  these;  namely  on  the  corrupt  state 
of  the  church  of^ England.  All  these  things  I  recorded  as  facts 
in  my  book;  and  yet  Mr.  E.  slipt  over  them  without  the  least  no- 
tice or  remark. 

5th  Fact.  In  the  minutes  of  the  conference,  held  when  the 
church  was  organized,  there  are  seventy  six  questions  and  their 
answers.  Not  one  of  these  questions  was  printed  in  tlie  volume  of 
the  American  minutes,  but  other  matter  was  substituted  as  may  be 
seen  by  comparing  these  minutes  with  the  prayer  book  ol  1786. 

6lh  Fact.  The  prayer  book  which  Mr.  Wesley  abridged  lor 
the  use  of  the  American  Methodists,  and  which  was  brougiit  over 
"iu  sheets,"  was  re-printed  in  London,  at  the  press  of  Frys  and 
Couchman,  in  a  short  time  after  Dr.  Coke  returned  to  England. 
He  also  had  the  minutes  containing  the  above  seventy-six  ques- 
tions and  their  answers  re-printed  at  the  same  time  and  bound 
up  with  the  prayer  book. 

tlh  Fact.  Dr.  Coke  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wesley  urging  him 
to  ordain  preachers  for  America;  notwithstanding  the  measure 
had  been  opposed  by  Mr.  Fletcher,  Mr.  Sellon,  and  some  other 
clergymen  at  the  conference.  See  Mr.  Creigliton's  testimony  on 
the  41st  page  of  this  book.  Dr.  Coke's  letter  was  dated  Aug.  9. 
1784  and  may  be  found  in  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  Vol.  2.  p. 
276.  An  extract  from  it  may  also  be  found  in  His.  and  Mys. 
p.  20.  It  ought  to  be  noticed  that  Dr.  Coke  wrote  the  aforesaid 
letter  after  the  conference  had  risen.  Compare  the  above  date 
w.t  1  Wesley's  Journals  of  Aug.  3.  1784. 

8i/i  Fact.  When  Dr.  Coke  came  to  America,  his  letter  of  or- 
dination, ae  it  has  been  called,  was  not  published;  akhough  it 
has  been  considered  "a  part  of  the  sketch"  which  Mr.  Wesley. 


140 

drew  up  for  the  use  of  the  societies.  It  is  presumed  the  reasoB 
why  this  letter  was  not  puhlished,  was  because  the  preaml)!e  of 
it  contradicted  the  organization  of  an  "independent  church," 
"Whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern  provinces  of 
Nortii-AriJfvica,  who  desire  io  continue  under  my  care''''  &c. 

9th  Fact.  Dr.  Coke  wrote  to  bisliop  White  proposing  to  re- 
unite the  Methodist  episcopal  church  with  the  Protestant  episco- 
pal church  in  the  United  States. 

IO//1  Fact.  When  Dr.  Coke  could  not  effect  an  union  with  the 
Protestant  episcopal  church  in  this  country,  he  wrote  to  the 
bishop  of  London  requesting  him  lo  oidain  a  given  number  of  the 
British  preachers.  This  he  need  not  have  done  if  he  vveie  a  bishop. 

llihFact.  Dr  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  chaiiged  the  title  super- 
intendent for  bishop.  ''They  changed  the  title  themselves  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  conference;  and  at  the  next  conference 
they  asked  the  preachers  if  the  word  bishop  might  stand  in  the 
minutes."  Lee's  His.  of  Methodism,  p.  128. 

I2th  Fact.  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  Mr.  Asbury  a  letter  of  severe 
reproof  for  having  assumed  the  title  oi"  bishop.  In  it  he  says 
"Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I 
am  content,  but  they  shall  never,by  my  consent,  call  me  a  bishop.'* 

ISth  Fact  Although  Mr  Wesley  expressed  himself  so  point- 
edly and  so  strongly  against  the  title  of  bishop  yet  the  very  next 
year  after  he  had  written  the  letter  containing  the  above  extract, 
his  name  was  placed  at  the  head  of  their, minutes  as  filling  the 
»piscopal  office.  Thus  :  "Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise 
the  episcopal  office  in  the  Methodist  episcopal  church  in  Europe 
and  America  .''  Answer.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  Francis 
Asbury."  But  Mr.  E.  says  "Mr.  Wesley  was  only  entered  as 
filling  the  episcopal  office,  but  was  not  entitled  bishop."  U  he 
was  not  a  bishop,  although  thus  entered,  neither  was  Dr.  Coke 
nor  Mr.  Asbury.  For  in  ch.  1.  sec.  1.  of  the  book  of  discipline 
the  term  "ejjiscopal"  is  mentioned  six  times,  and  the  persons 
who  "exercised'   that  "office,"  are  called  "bishops" 

I4th  Fact  The  travelling  preachers  who  composed  the 
conference  in  1784,  organized  the  Methodist  socieiies  into  an 
"  indepeadent  chuich,"  and  assumed  the  title  "the  Mtthodist 
episcopal  church.'  They  did  this  without  consul :ing  the  local 
preachers  or  lay  members  of  the  societies  :  They  adopted  the 
episcopal  form  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  said  societies,  who 
were  inclined  to  be  Presbyterians  :  And  they  did  it  without  the 
direction  or  recommendation  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

io//t  Fact.  At  the  conference  in  1784,  the  preachers  made 
the  following  solemn  declaration.  "  During  the  life  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  ready,  in  matters  be- 
longing to  church  government,  to  obey  his  commands." 

16</i  Fact.  iVlr.  Wesley  wrote  to  Dr.  Coke  expressing  a 
wish  "that  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  may  be  appointed  a  super- 
intendent with  Mr.  Fraftcis  Asbury."     Mr.  Wesley's  wishes 


141 

were  disregarded,  notwithstanding   the   foregoing  declaration  ; 
for  Mr.  VVhatcoat  was  not  appointed, 

17//i,F«cf.  At  tlie  conference  held  in  Baltimoie  in '87,  Mr. Wes- 
ley's authority  vA'as  disowned,  and  his  name  struck  of!"  the  nninutes 
ofconference.  Two  things  are  to  he  noticed  here,  1.  The  confer- 
ence by  wliich  this  cruel  act  was  done,  consisted  of  only  a  part  of 
the  whole  itinerant  connexion.  Other  conferences  being  held  in 
other  places  that  same  year.  2.  V'r.  Asbury  was  present  at  that 
conference,  and  made  no  objection  to  it,  but  "  was  mute  when  it 
was"  done. 

IStk  Fact.  At  the  very  conference,  at  which  Mr,  Wesley's  au- 
thority was  disowned,  and  his  name  struck  off  the  minutes,  the 
title  of  "bichop"  was  entered  on  the  minutes.  See  the  11th  Fact. 
19//i  Fact.  When  Mr.  Wesley  died,  who  was  the  "faiher" 
and  founder  of  Methodism,  and  who  had  preached  the  gospel 
upwards  of  GO  yeais,  there  was  no  notice  taken  of  his  death  in 
the  minutes,  altliougn  an  obituary  notice  was  recorded  ©f  a 
young  man  who  died  \he  same  year,  who  "  had  been  in  the 
field  of  labour"  only  '-'■  two  years  and  a  kalf.'^'' 

20/ /i  Fact.  When  Mr  Asbury  was  enumerating  the  sources 
of  his  episcopal  authority,  the  names  of  all  who  were  concerned 
in  the  transaction,  weie  nientioned  except  that  of  Mr.  Wesley. 
21s/  Fact.  When  Mr.  W^esley  wrote  to  Mr.  Asbury,  en- 
treating him  to  put  away  the  title  of  bishop,  Mr.  Asbur}  would 
not  do  it,  although  he  was  urged  to  do  so  by  the  following 
moving  entreaties  :  "  for  my  sake — for  God's  sake — for  Christ's 
sake."     The  title  of  bishop  he  still  retained. 

22d  Fact.  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter  of  Sep.  10,  1784, 
which,  according  to  Mr.  E's  statement,  was  also  part  of  the 
"  sketch  diawn  up  for  the  use  of  the  societies,"  was  mulilated, 
and  only  an  extract  from  it,  was  published. 

23c/  Fact.  The  minutes  ofconference  were  altered,  and  not 
one  line  of  all  that  was  recorded  when  the  minutes  were  taken, 
which  were  printed  by  Charles  Cist,  in  Philadelphia,  and  after- 
wards reprinted  in  London,  is  to  be  found  in  the  book  of  printed 
minutes  sold  at  the  book  room  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church. 
24//j,  Fact.  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  presented  an  "  address 
to  George  Washington,  president  of  the  United  States."  Mr. 
Drew  «ays,  this  address  was  presented  before  the  doctor  re- 
turned to  Europe.  That  it  was  printed  in  the  public  papers, 
and  found  its  way  to  England  before  the  doctor.  That  charges 
were  preferred  against  him  in  the  conference,  predicated  upon 
this  address.  All  this  is  admitted  by  Mr.  E.  but  he  says  the 
address  was  not  presented  beibre  the  year  1789.  Excepting 
the  decrease  of  numbers  this  is  the  only  fact  in  all  my  book 
of  wliich  there  can  be  any  doubt.  If  Mr.  Drew's  statement  be 
an  error,  it  remains  so  still,  notwithstanding  all  Mr.  E.  has  said. 
And  if  it  be  an  error,  it  does  not  affect  Metliodist  episcopacy  : 
it  neither  confirms  its  claims,  nor  destroys  its  validity. 


142 

ilAVING  now  presented  in  A  condensed  form,  some  of  the  facts  contained 
in  my  "History  and  Mystery,"  1  may  be  allowed  to  ask  those  who  have  been 
engaged  in  the  "■pious  wo;  ^"of  slandering  me,  and  who  have  raised  the  hue  and 
cry  oV  defamation  against  me,  what  "fact"  have  1  "misrepresented,"  or  what 
*'  circumstance"  have  I  '-misstated"?  1  have  stated  the  foregoing  facts  in 
language  that  cannot  be  misunderstood;  and  I  have  stated  them  exactly  as  I 
found  them  in  works  which  have  chiefly  been  printed  at  the  Methodist  book 
room.  Tiiese  works  are  supposed  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the 
church.  If,  therefore,  1  have  "misrepresented'  any  "fact"  it  is  one  of  the 
easiest  things  in  the  world,  to  prove  the  misrepresentation-  I  defy  my  calum- 
niators to  do  it.  It  will  not  be  enough  for  those  who  make  the  charge  to  rest 
it  upon  their  own  unsupported  declaration.  Their  assertion  is  one  thing;  the 
proof  of  the  truth  of  that  assertion  is  another.  It  is  due  to  themselves,  if  they 
vould  avoid  the  charge  of  "slander  and  falsehood."  It  is  due  to  Methodist 
episcopacy  which  they  profess  to  defend.  It  is  due  to  the  sacred  cause  of 
Thutu.  It  is  due  to  one  who  has  been  most  shamefully  vilified  and  injured. 
Let  them,  then,  prove  what  they  have  said,  or  if  they  cannot  do  it,  let  them 
recant  their  base  and  slanderous  statements 

From  stating  *'facts  and  circumstances'  I  shall  proceed  to  offer  some  rea» 
sons  which  have  induced  me  to  believe  that  the  form  of  government  of  the 
Meiliodist  episcopal  church  has  been  surreptitiously  introduced. 

FIRST  REASON.  Because  there  is  not  a  single  line  from  Mr.  Wesley's 
pen,  in  which  he  ever  recommended  the  episcopal  form  of  government  to 
the  American  Methodists  Six  of  the  preachers,  who  were  in  the  confer- 
ence of  1784,  have  informed  me,  that  they  never  saw  such  a  paper  If  any 
one  now  living  has  seen  such  a  paper,  let  him  come  forth  and  declare  it. 
The  want  of  such  proot,  is,  of  itself  sufficient  to  establish  the  assertion,  that 
the  episcopal  form  of  government  has  been  surreptitiously  introduced. 

SECOND  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley  was  induced  to  supply  the 
An-erican  societies  with  the  ordinances,  from  the  assurances  made  him,  that 
these  societies  '■'■desired  to  contiiuie  mule?-  his  care."  See  the  preamble  to  Dr. 
Coke's  letter  of  appointment.     But  these  assurances  were  soon  violated 

THIRD  REASON.  Because  in  the  circular  of  Sep  10,  1784,  Mr.  Wesley 
says  nothing  about  any  particular  form  of  government;  although  that  letter 
is  given  in  the  minutes  as  the  reason  why  the  episcopal  form  w:\s  adopted. 
All  he  says  is,  "they  are  now  at  full  liberty  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the 
primitive  church."  \\  ith  this  agrees  Dr.  Phoebua's  statement,  "  Mr.  Wesley 
recommended  to  us  the  New  Testament  for  our  pattern" 

FOUR  I'H  REASON.  In  the  circular  of  the  above  date,  Mr.  Wesley  says, 
"  In  compliance  with  their  desire,  I  have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch.''  Where 
is  that  little  sketch  .'  Who  ever  saw  it  ?  Mr  E.  now  tells  us  that  "Dr. 
Coke's  letter  of  ordination" — "  the  preface  to  the  prayer  book" — "  Mr.Wes- 
ley's  letter  of  Sep.  10,  1784"— and  •'  the  prayer  book,  constituted  together 
the  little  sketch."  Def  p.  37.  I'hls  does  not  agree  with  Mr.  Wesley's  lan- 
guage, "I  have  drawn  np  a  little  sketch."  This^sketch  could  not  consist  of 
tlie  above  named  papers,  each  of  which  was  intended  for  a  specific  purpose. 

FIFTH  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley  declared  in  the  above  circular 
that  there  are  but  t-wo  orderi.  He  could  not,  therefore,  have  intended  by 
setting  Dr.  Coke  apart  as  a  superintendent,  to  create  a  t/urd. 

SIXTH  REASON.  Because  there  is  no  evidence  tliat  Mr  Wesley  ap- 
proved  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  in  1784  in  becoming  an  "inde- 
pendent church,"  and  assuming  the  title  "the  Methodist  episcopal  church." 

SEVENTH  RE  \SON  Because  Rev.  Henry  Moore,  Mr.  Wesley's  biograi 
phei,  declares,  "Mr.  Wesley  never  gave  his  sanction  to  any  of  these  things" 

EIGH  IH  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Asbury's  "attachment  to  the  church  of 
England"  in  whicli  there  ^re  three  orders  "  ■w-d^s,  exceedingly  stiong."  He 
also  "preferred  the  episcopal,  to  the  presbyterian  form  of  government.' 

NINTH  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Asbury  believed  tlrere  are  three  orders 
of  ministers. 

TENI  H  REASON.  Because  in  organizing  the  church,  the  episcopal 
form  of  government  was  adopted,  contr.iry  to  the  wishes  of  the  societies  If 
the  Bocieties  hnd  besn  consulted,  they  would  hKve  adopted  the  presbyterian 


143 

form,  not  the  episcopnl.     "Our  numeroua  societies,"  guys  Dr.  Coke,  "vouW 
have  been  a  res;ular  presbyterian  church  were  it  not  for  nie  " 

ELEVEN  PH  UEASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley's  ''toletnn  injunction f,,  not 
to  take  the  title  of  bishop,"  were  disregarded,  and  that  title  was  alterwards 
taken. 

TvVELFrH  UEASON.  Because  Dr.  Coke's  letter  of  appointment,  in 
wliich  Mr.  Wesley  sets  forth  the  "desire  of  the  societies  to  continue  under 
his  care,"  was  supprested. 

THIRTEENTH  liE  ASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter  of  Sep. 
10,  1184,  was  mutilated  when  published. 

FOURTEENTH  REASON.  Because  chapter  1,  section  1,  of  the  book  of 
discipline,  entitled  "of  the  origin  of  the  Methodist  episcopal  church"  was 
not  written  until  after  Air    Hesley's  death. 

FIFTEENTH  REASON.  Because  it  was  never  said  until  some  time  after 
Mr.  Wesley's  death,  which  event  happened  nearly  7  years  after  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church,  that  he  recommended  the  episcopal  torm  of  government. 
SIXTEENTH  REASON.  Because  of  the  p^ins  taken  to  exhibit  episco- 
pacy to  the  best  advantage  in  ch.  1.  sec  1.  of  the  book  of  discipline.  The 
term  "episcopal"  occurring  six  limes,  the  term  "bishops"  once,  and  Mr. 
Wesley  s  phrase  'ordained  ministers"  being  rejected,  and  "three  regularly 
ordained  clergy"  substituted  in  its  stead. 

SEVENTEENTH  REASON.  Because  the  records  of  the  church  have 
been  altered,  see  119th  page  of  this  work. 

EIGHTEENTH  REASON  Because  contradictory  reasons  are  assigned 
for  the  adoption  of  the  episcopal  form  of  government:  compare  Mr. Wesley's 
letter  of  Sep.  10,  17§4,  the  first  chapter  antl  first  section  of  the  book  of  ciis. 
cipline,  and  the  account  given  in  the  book  ef  discipline  of  1795,  copied  into 
the  History  and  Mystery,  p    18. 

NINETEEN'I'H  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley's  prayer  book  and  the 
minutes  of  conf  rence  of  1784  were  reprinted  in  England,  at  the  press  of 
Frys  and  Couchman,  and  not  at  Mr.  Wesley's,  in  a  short  time  after  Dr.  Coke 
returned  to  Europe  ;  that,  coming  from  England,  with  the  minutes  of  the 
Methodist  episcopal  church  bound  up  with  it,  it  might  seem  as  if  these  min- 
utes had  Mr    Wesley's  approbation. 

TWENTIETH  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley's  prayer  book  was  laid 
aside,  shortly  after  the  church  was  organized.  And  now  Mr  E.  offers  tlie 
recommendation  of  this  prayer  book  as  Mr.  Wesley's  recommendation  of  the 
episcopal  form  of  church  government!!! 

TWENTY  FIRST  REASON.  Because,  in  about  two  years  after  ordina- 
tion had  been  obtained,  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  was  disowned,  and  his  name 
was  struck  off  the  minutes,  by  a  "feiv"  of  the  preachers,  oi  07ie  of  the  con- 
ferences held  in  that  year. 

TWENTY  SECOND  REASON.  Because  Mr  Brackenbury  stated,  that 
he  saw  a  letter  from  Mr.  Asbury  in  which  he  said,  "that  he  would  not  receive 
any  person  deputed  by  Mr.  Wesley  to  take  any  part  of  the  superintendency 
of  the  work  invested  in  him  " 

TWENTY  1H1RD  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Wesley  declared  he  had 
himself  "received  some  letters  from  Mr.  Asbury  affirming  that  no  person  in 
Europe  knew  how  to  direct  those  in  America." 

TnVENTY  FOURTH  REASON.  Because  Mr  Asbury  himself  declares. 
"I  did  not  tliink  it  practical  expediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley  in  all  matters  re- 
lative to  church  governmerit.'" 

TWENTY  FIFTH  REASON.  Because  Mr.  Asbury  in  n  con^deriiialletter 
to  George  Shadford  said  "Mr.  Wesley  and  F  are  like  Caesar  and  Fompey — 
he  will  bear  no  eqxial  and  I  will   bear  no  superior." 

TWENTY  SIXTH  REASON.  Because  the  title  bishop  was  assumed 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  preachers  At  the  next  conference  permission 
was  asked  to  let  this  title  be  entered  on  the  cninutes. 

TWENTY  SEVENTH  REASON.  Because  the  t\i\e  bithof)  was  placed 
on  tlie  minutes  the  same  year  that  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  was  rejected. 

TWENTY  EIGHTH  REASON.  Because  Mr  Wesley  severely  censured 
Mr.  Asbury  for  assuming  the  title  of  bishop.  "How  can  you,  how  dare  you 
•suffer  yourself  to  be  called  »  bishop  ?  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the  very  thought. 


144 


Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am  content^ 
but  tlie>  shall  never  by  my  consent  call  me  a  bishop." 

TWKl-JTY  NINTH  HEASON-  Because  Mr.  Asbury  would  nf>t  put  away 
the  title  of  bishop,  although  he  had  been  entreated  to  do  so  by  Mr-  Wesley 
in  the  follovvmg  moving  manner.  ♦•For  my  sake — for  God's  sake — for  Christ's 
sake"  Sic,  He  would  neither  yield  to  reproof  nor  entreaty  ;  but  would  ra- 
ther forfeit  the  confidence  and  affection  of  Mr  Wesley  his  "father"  his  be- 
nefaetor,  and  one  of  "his  greatest  friends,  '  than  part  with  the  title  of  bishop. 

THIRTIETH  REASON.  Because  no  notice  is  taken  of  Mr.  Wesley's  death 
in  the  American  minutes  of  conference,  although  the  doath  of  one  who  had 
not  travelled  more  than  "two  years  and  a  half"  is  respectfully  recorded. 

THIRTY  FIRST  REASON.  Because  Mr  Asbury  takes  no  notice  of  Mr. 
Wesley  in  enumerating  the  sources  whence  he  derived  his  episcopal  author- 
ity;  and  yet  Mr  \V  esley's  recommendation  of  the  "liturgy"  is  given  as  his  re- 
commendation of  the  episcopal  form  of  government, 

THIRTY  SECOND  REASON  Because  of  the  strife  between  Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Asbury  and  the  conference.  See  Dr  Coke's  certificate  of  May  1787  in 
my  His.  and  Mys  p,  62.  Dr.  Coke's  letter  dated  Wilmington  Del.  May  1791 
in  my  His.  and  Mys.  p  64  Dr  Coke's  letter  to  bishop  White  in  this  work 
p.  58.  See  also  an  extract  from  his  letter  in  "Defence  of  our  Fathers"  p.  91, 

THIRTY  THIRD  REASON.  Becauue  Dr.  Coke  wrote  a  letter  to  bishop 
While,  without  consulting  the  conference,  or  even  Mr.  Asbury  his  colleague 
in  the  episcopal  office  ;  proposing  to  re-unite  the  Methodist  witli  the  Pro- 
lestant  episcopal  church 

THJR'IY  FOURTH  REASON.  Because  in  the  aforesaid  letter,  Dr.  Coke 
acknowledged  he  'went  further  in  the  separation  than  Mr.  Wesley,  from 
whom  he  nad  received  bis  commission,  did  intend." 

THIRTY  FIF  TH  REASON.  Because  Dr.  Coke  wrote  to  the  bishop  of 
I>ondon  requesting  liim  to  ordain  only  a  few  of  the  British  preaciiers. 
AVouid  he  hare  done  tliis  if  he  had  been  a  bishop  .' 

THIRTY  SIXTH  REASON  Because  of  the  pains  which  have  been 
taken  by  the  rulers  ot  ihe  church,  to  effect  concealment  and  prevent  exa- 
mination Investigation  being  interdicted,  in  fact,  under  the  penalty  of  ex- 
communication. 

THIRTY  SEVENTH  REASON  Because  of  the  contradictory  views  of 
the  writers  who  have  undertaken  to  defend  Methodist  episcopacy  See  Mr. 
Morrell's.  Dr.Phcebus's,  Mr-Bai\gs's,  and  Mr  Emory's  |)ampldcts,Mr  AA'esley's 
letter  of  Sep  10  1784.  The  first  chapter  and  first  section  of  the  book  of 
discipline.  The  section  extracted  fn^m  the  book  of  discipline  of  1705  pub- 
lished in  my  His  and  Mys.  p  18  'l"he  extract  from  Mr.Asbury's  letter  dated 
Dec,  26.  1806  in  this  work  p.  90;  and  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  said  to  be 
written  by  T.  E.  Bond  and  signed  by  George  Earnest  and  others.  If  the 
reader  will  compare  these  documents,  he  will  find  that  the  writers  not  only 
diH'er  respecting  the  origin  of  "our  episcopacy''  and  the  reasons  for  adopt- 
ing tije  episcopal  form  of  church  government:  but  tliat  they  conMadict  one 
another  in  their  statements  respecting  the  ministerial  oi'der  to  which  a  Me- 
thodist bishop  belongs. 

WHhN  the  cant, id  reader  sJiall  have  duly  considered  the  nature,  the  num- 
ber, and  the  variety  of  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  foregoiiig  recapitulation,  he 
will  be  led  to  the  inevitable  conclusion,  that  Methodist  episcopacy,  as  it  now 
exists,  is  not  Of  Mr.  \\' esley's  creating ;  nor  could  he  have  recommended  the 
episcopal  form  of  government  to  the  American  societies.  He  will  be  con- 
vinced that  although  these  "facts''  are  so  diversified  in  their  character, 
originating-  under  vai-ious  circumstauces,  happening  at  different  periods,  and 
having  been  ir.uisacted  by  dift'erent  agents,  yet  they  all  unite-to  prove  such 
a  recommendation  inipos.sible.  And  he  will  be  convinced,  by  these  "facts 
and  reasons,"  that  I  am  fully  sustained  in  the  assertion  1  have  made  that  the 
episcopal  form  of  government  was  suuRKP-riTiocsLr  iNTRODtcF.n,  and  was 
jniposed  on  Ihe  societies  under  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley's  name. 

Erratum. — Expunge  the  words  "for  it"  in  the  note  on  the  56th  page,  sec- 
»nd  line  from  the  bottom. 

FINIS. 


DATE  DUE 

■•'wSfcft^ftjJgJlyjIj  H^- 

Urn 

\ 

^m^TT^ 

% 

'FEB  29  '« 

i 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  US    A. 

mMmmm 


u 


!\i^^ 


rai^f 


M^-'^m^si&^'9^' 


•w^^M&W? 


iMvM 


^li^f^^'^'^i'^^s^^ 


■'•VWyv. 


¥p,,Mmk.... 


(^,yowcv«y^ 


'^M^^^^', 


f':.mm 


:^^-mm^ 


"!"" 


,5,aft"i.- 


Ill'' 


i 


Vjt.^. 


TOww^ 


l^'l-^iimim^^^-^^^i^^'''" 


M^.. 


W:^^^::^ 


W^ 

Kf^^K 

rA"^ 

■mmh 

JCT^"^''''" 

■■j 

r*9 

^Ml 

1  r    :■ , 

t  !■- 

cl^  ^  " 

"•^"v 

^JLt^ 

rtii 

ffl 

ill 

iM 

vv.Ji 


■yywWw..,;r,aurwv 


VS^^^^^v 


'vrnmm^ 


wwyw:"^^. 


'y^wy. 


